User talk:Acdixon/Archive Jan-Jun 2010

Invitation
J654567 (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Article
Hello! Your submission of Article at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! - EdoDodo talk 15:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 and Dermatology-related content
I noticed that you are participating in the 2010 WikiCup. I have been working on the Bolognia push which is a project to make sure Wikipedia has an article (or redirect) on every know cutaneous condition. With that being said, there are still many cutaneous condition stubs to be made, and Bolognia could be a source for a lot of DYK articles, etc. Therefore, I was thinking maybe we could help one another... a competative WikiCup that also serves to improve dermatologic content on Wikipedia. I could e-mail you the Bolognia login information if you have any interest? ---kilbad (talk) 03:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Signatures
A general signature from the United States doesn't surpass the threshold of originality,. It should be fine. Connormah (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Wilkinson
The article is really good, but I don't think it's quite ready. Need to add some text about Kentucky teachers' opinions of KERA, which led to WW's falling out with Brereton Jones. Somewhere I've got a great quote from Jones that talks about the last time he ever walked into the governor's office during WW's administration. Good stuff. -Spacini (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just added the bit about Wilkinson/Jones. Very happy you nominated the article for GA and I'm looking forward to seeing it upgraded!  Thanks for all of your hard work.  --Spacini (talk) 04:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Bert T. Combs
I left some comments at the FAC if you want to take a look. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 January newsletter
We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. We've had some shakeups regarding late entries, flag changes and early dropouts, but the competition is now established- there will be no more flag changes or new competitors. Congratulations to, our current leader, who, at the time of writing, has more listed points than and   (second and third place respectively) combined. A special well done also goes to - his artcle Jewel Box (St. Louis, Missouri) was the first content to score points in the competition.

Around half of competitors are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. 64 of the 149 current competitors will advance to round 2- if you currently have no points, do not worry, as over half of the current top 64 have under 50 points. Everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places in round 2! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! J Milburn, Garden, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Crittenden
Thanks for your note. WP:LEAD also states "avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, because the reader will know that greater detail is saved for the body of the article." That's what I was going by, as the lead as you had it seemed far more detailed than most biographical leads I'm familiar with, and seemed to bog down (my opinion, only) in _relative_ minutiae. I'm certainly not of a mind to argue the point beyond this, and will leave it at that, knowing that you will follow WP guidelines in good faith, as you've exhibited thus far. Thanks. Monkeyzpop (talk) 05:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Wendell H. Ford
I think I'll just strike my oppose. It was no big deal to start with and I can't really be bothered picking fights with every similar image. It's not fair to take it out on such a nice article - I mean, whom does it benefit? No-one. So, on balance, keep them. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 19:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 February newsletter
Round one is over, and round two has begun! Congratulations to the 64 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our first round. A special well done goes to, our round one winner (1010 points), and to and , who were second and third respectively (640 points/605 points). Sasata was awarded the most points for both good articles (300 points) and featured articles (600 points), and TonyTheTiger was awarded the most for featured topics (225 points), while Hunter Kahn claimed the most for good topics (70). claimed the most featured lists (240 points) and featured pictures (35 points), claimed the most for Did you know? entries (490 points),  claimed the most for featured sounds (70 points) and  claimed the most for In the news entries (40 points). No one claimed a featured portal or valued picture.

Credits awarded after the end of round one but before round two may be claimed in round two, but remember the rule that content must have been worked on in some significant way during 2010 by you for you to claim points. The groups for round two will be placed up shortly, and the submissions' pages will be blanked. This round will continue until 28 April, when the top two users from each group, as well as 16 wildcards, will progress to round three. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup; thank you to all doing this last round, and particularly to those helping at WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

John Wall (basketball)
Can you move the image John-Wall.jpg to Wikimedia Commons ? --80.140.246.77 (talk) 01:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, stranger
Guess who?..and guess what?...C'ville got chopped again. Both chops combined to kill the section and both edits noted as "non notable"...this is really starting to get to me. As soon as this posts to your talk, I'm going to go add the Notable Natives section back in - is there any way we can get a semi-protect on the page?

(btw: I love the photo updates, I'm just sick of the incessant chops)

Hope your holidays were happy ones!! VulpineLady (talk) 00:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for picture
Thank you for your picture added to Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. 24.3.220.206 (talk) 09:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 March newsletter
We're half way through round two, and everything is running smoothly. leads overall with 650 points this round, and heads pool B. currently leads pool C, dubbed the "Group of Death", which has a only a single contestant yet to score this round (the fewest of any group), as well five contestants over 100 points (the most). With a month still to go, as well as 16 wildcard places, everything is still to play for. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Although unrelated to the WikiCup, April sees a Good Article Nominations backlog elimination drive, formulated as a friendly competition with small awards, as the Cup is. Several WikiCup contestants and judges have already signed up, but regular reviewers and those who hope to do more reviewing are more than welcome to join at the drive page. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Julian Carroll
I have started the GA review on this, and will get back to it sometime soon. Also planning to do Martha Collins soon. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Martha Layne Collins
The article Martha Layne Collins you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Martha Layne Collins for things which need to be addressed. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

combs
It may be worth looking at pictures when he was in the military, these will all be in the public domain if taken by a member of the army as part of their routine work, a passing out parade, on receipt of a medal, even his id card would be PD. Fasach Nua (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

CJ archives
You left a note on my talk page some time ago (User:Rividian)... I've forgotten my password so I made this account to reply. At any rate, the Louisville Free Public Library provides access to Newsbank's CJ archives. If you have a library card you can access archives back to 2003 or so via their website. In the physical libraries, if you can wait out the people looking at porn and watching rap videos, you can use their PCs to search a computer archive that goes back to 1988 or maybe 1987. For the real nitty gritty pre-1987 stuff there's always microfilm. I'm not sure if citing antique newspaper articles is really a good idea for Wikipedia, but whatever, they're there if you look for them.

The computer database and microfilm archives are also at U of L, maybe UK for all I know, you might call the reference desk and ask. I also recall there being a book in the U of L book stacks with transcripts of speeches Ford gave throughout his political career. Very interesting stuff! There's also some scholarly articles on him via JSTOR. I think I expanded the article originally while I was writing a college paper on Ford and the political protection of tobacco. --Rividian1 (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Parker Watkins Hardin
I'm sorry to report that I can find no mention of Parker Watkins Hardin in any ACW sources for Kentucky. I suspect, as I think you do, that the title "general" was being given to him due to his political position as attorney general and not for any such rank in the CS army. Given his date of birth, it's entirely possible that he served, but I can find no service record at all. I even called a few of my friends who are active in the SCV in Kentucky and asked them to do some searches in the Kentucky Adjutant General's Office records. Nothing. If this guy actually served in any CS force, his service records have been entirely lost. Sorry I couldn't be more help. Spacini (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Bert Combs
I agree with you on the image -- we'll see what Jappalang says. One advantage of getting an authoritative opinion is that at least you'll know where you stand; if Jappalang OKs it, you can be confident Sandy will ignore an oppose; conversely if Jappalang says it's a problem, you know you have to do something about it.

Re the review: I hope it's useful; I'll be glad to work with you on the issues I raised. If anything in the copyedit I did is problematic, feel free to revert. I'll have another look at the sources I found on Google Books and see if anything else looks worth checking out, and add a note at the article talk page if so. I'm in the NY library system and if there's anything you can't get, let me know and I'll see if I can find it here, though if it's KY history it's unlikely I'd have access if you don't. I should have said at the review, by the way, that it was an interesting article; I know nothing about Kentucky but enjoyed reading this slice of history, and I look forwarding to supporting it at the next go round. Mike Christie (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You mentioned being concerned about length, but I wouldn't worry about that: readable prose size is currently 27Kb; a long FA is something like Inner German border, which is 68Kb of readable prose -- two and a half times as long. In any case, a long article can always be shrunk via summary style. Mike Christie (talk) 01:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Pardon me for piggyback-ing onto this thread. Eh, I am much pleased with the accolades, but I think Elcobbola would qualify more as an authoritative figure than me (I still go to him for advice).  That said, I see no issues with the State Quarter and the State Seal.


 * Fasach Nua was good to worry that the Quarter might have been a derivative of a copyrighted design (see here). However, I did some investigating and in my opinion, the final design (by Ferrell) deviated from the original design (by Blair) enough to warrant its own copyright.  As such, Ferrell's (a government employee) work was done in his line of duty and is in the public domain.  I have added some information to the State Quarter image pages to qualify this.


 * As for the Seals, Fasach was right to question what the copyright status of the seal is; from Commons:Commons:Coat of Arms and Copyright on emblems, even if a blason (description of what a coat of arms should be) is in public domain, the emblasons (representations of a blason) can be copyrighted. This SVG was an exact representation of the State Seal; as such its copyright is of the original State Seal representation.  There were a variety of such representations until 1962 when the State laid down a formal specification.  Luckily, since it is 1962, anything published in the US without a copyright notice falls into the public domain (failure to comply with copyright formalities), and this State Seal certainly was put out without any notice at all.  We can see the exact representation in the 1962 State Flag.  The restrictions imposed by the Kentucky Attorney General is not relevant to copyright law.  It does not affect its storage on Commons (which is mostly concerned with copyright), but on how the image can be used; as such, it is irrelevant to the FA criterion.


 * Bert Comb's portrait, however, is a different deal... I am aware of your efforts to find a public domain image (after personally searching through Google and the image archives of LoC and NARA), but I think you might have overlooked one possibility.  Remember that publications of 1923–1977 have to comply with copyright formalities.  I found on Google Books: "Members of the Kentucky Court of Appeals pictured here in the court chambers are, left to right; Judges Parker W. Duncan, Bert T. Combs, Porter Sims, ...", which is published on p. 32 of In Kentucky, Volume 16, Issue 4 (1953).  This appears to be a full page spread for a photo-shoot sitting of ranks of 8-people or less.  A search on the US Copyright Office records show that no copyright was renewed for this publication or its publishers (Kentucky Department of Conservation).  As such, if the photo was first published in there (and very likely so), it has fallen into the public domain.  The publication is available in the Tennessee State Library & Archives.  It might also be available in other libraries (try Worldcat).  As the entire collection is in public domain, you might find more "free" photos of Combs and other notable Kentucky figures of that period in them.  Jappalang (talk) 01:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 April newsletter
Round two is over, and we are down to our final 32. For anyone interested in the final standings (though not arranged by group) this page has been compiled. Congratulations to, our clear overall round winner, and to and , who were solidly second and third respectively. There were a good number of high scorers this round- competition was certainly tough! Round three begins tomorrow, but anything promoted after the end of round two is eligible for points. 16 contestants (eight pool leaders and eight wildcards) will progress to round four in two months- things are really starting to get competitive. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Judge iMatthew has retired from Wikipedia, and we wish him the best. The competition has been ticking over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. A special thank you goes to participants and  for their help in preparing for round three. Good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 17:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Parker Watkins Hardin
Hello! Your submission of Parker Watkins Hardin at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! The Bushranger (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Kentucky gubernatorial election, 1899
Hi, I am reviewing your GA nomination and have left a few suggestions at Talk:Kentucky gubernatorial election, 1899/GA1 It is an excellent article, very well written. My suggestions are directed at providing a more fluid read. Best wishes, Xtzou ( Talk ) 21:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Ping! Are you still interested in this nomination? Only a few issues to address. Regards, Xtzou ( Talk ) 19:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's fine now. Thanks for fixing. It is a GA. Very good work. Xtzou ( Talk ) 16:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 May newsletter
We are half way through round 3, with a little under a month to go. The current overall leader is, who has 570 points. He leads pool C. Pools A, B and D are led by, and  respectively. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Two of last year's final 8, and, have dropped out of the competition, saying they would rather their place went to someone who will have more time on their hands than them next round. On a related note, a special thank you goes to for his help behind the scenes once again. There is currently a problem with the poster, perhaps caused by the new skin- take a look at this discussion and see if you can help. The competition has continued to tick over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. Good luck to all! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 20:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Martha Layne Collins
Great idea to work on getting Martha Layne Collins to FA status for 2011 March Women's History Month. And it is a good idea to plan ahead!! FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 02:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

SCOTUS articles
Hi.

The general format for SCOTUS articles is as follows:

Lead

==Background==

==Opinion of the Court==

==Subsequent developments== (if applicable)

==See also== (optional)

==References==

==External links==

Citations of SCOTUS cases should use the case name in italics and the template, which would produce Taylor v. Beckham,. Note that this provides a link to the actual opinion via Justica. Citations of other court opinions should use the template, which would produce   Where the decisions are mentioned in the text, they should be cited as references using the same format.

The Backgound section should include the facts of the dispute, history in lower courts and relevant political/historical context. These can be subsections.

The Opinion of the Court section should begin with: "Justice name of justice delivered the opinion of the court." This will be followed by the text of the section. Subsections may include "Concurrences" and "Dissents" for that part of the opinion. It may include a subsection on arguments presented.

Subsequent developments would include any cases that over-turn the decision, changes in law, relevant developments for the parties involved, etc.

References is self-explanatory, although you need to use the Bluebook citation style and the above mentioned court templates for court cases. An on-line reference to the citation style is here.

External links must include a stable link to the decision - which can be produced by the ussc template as above.

Examples of SCOTUS GAs are Berghuis v. Thompkins or United States v. Lara. I reviewed the first for GA and expanded and submitted the second for GA.

Hope this helps. GregJackP •  Boomer!  • 21:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC) 21:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Kige Ramsey
I've noticed you've been constantly reverting Kige edits to the Russellville, Kentucky page. How is Ramsey not a notable resident? He has been written about in the local paper several times, his work has been recognized by Jimmy Fallon and Deadspin. He appears regularly on the Clay Travis show and KY Sports Radio. His videos are well known by thousands. I don't know if we have enough info to give him an entire page, but he certainly belongs in the notable residents section. What does it hurt? More people know him than most of the people on that list anyway. --Airtuna08 (talk) 15:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * He is more than your run of the mill YouTuber. His Super Bowl XLII pick video had half a million views. He was the 2008 runner up for sports personality of the year on Deadspin.com. I think merely having him on the list is not a big deal and probably warranted. Several people have attempted to add him already which sort of proves my point. It appears you're the only one deleting him. --Airtuna08 (talk) 16:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Several attempts have been made to create an article for Ramsey, but they have been deleted every time. This is because they were stub articles with not alot of information, but I do think because of the number of attempts to add a page and add his name to the notable residents make him relevant enough to be mentioned under the major residents of Russellville. I don't see why he shouldn't be there. It is one line in the trillions of nuggets on wikipedia. You're telling me he isn't more notable than millions of things that already exist on wikipedia? --Airtuna08 (talk) 18:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 June newsletter
We're half way through 2010, and the end of the WikiCup is in sight! Round 3 is over, and we're down to our final 16. Our pool winners were (A),  (B, and the round's overall leader),  (C)  and  (D, joint), but, with the scores reset, everything is to play for in our last pooled round. The pools will be up before midnight tonight, and have been selected randomly by J Milburn. This will be the toughest round yet, and so, as ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Though unaffiliated with the WikiCup, July sees the third Great Wikipedia Dramaout- a project with not dissimilar goals to the WikiCup. Everyone is welcome to take part and do their bit to contribute to the encyclopedia itself.

If you're interested in the scores for the last round of the Cup, please take a look at WikiCup/History/2010/Round 3 and WikiCup/History/2010/Full/Round 3. Our thanks go to for compiling these. As was predicted, Group C ended up the "Group of Death", with 670 points required for second place, and, therefore, automatic promotion. This round will probably be even tougher- again, the top two from each of the two groups will make it through, while the twelve remaining participants will compete for four wildcard places- good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17