User talk:HiB2Bornot2B/Archive 1

=March 2007–August 2007=

Please remember to sign your posts :)
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 ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) 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)

Emerson
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)

Barnstar
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)
 * You might want to mention this barnstar nomination on the WikiProject Kentucky talk page to make project members aware of it. Acdixon 14:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well as a result of the MfD discussion there is no process. Is yours a Project award? Or is a regular barnstar? Whichever it is just list it on the appropriate page at WP:BS. If you have any questions about your images in the future or anything else I think they can just be addressed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards instead of having to go through a cumbersome nomination process. When you list it just follow the examples already listed and make sure you create a template for your award. IvoShandor 15:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem, neat award btw. IvoShandor 15:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Paintsville High School
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)

Loretta Lynn
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)

Adminship
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)

Image for Qxz ads.
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)
 * I created the image. I also released it into the public domain.  I am quite good at Photoshop, and I used some text effects, and the only image that I actually DID use is, which was already in the public domain.  So I believe that this ad conforms to Wikipedia's policy on ads and ensuring that all images are free images.  Steven Williamson (HiB2Bornot2B) - talk 15:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, but the problem is that the image may be very confusing and loud for some older readers and may not conform to the uniformity of the other ads. I would have appreciated if you brought this issue to me first before making your ad, as a common courtesy.  I may make another version of this ad in order to conform to other state projects, such as Pennsylvania. Also, next time you make an ad for a project, please cite your sources. Miranda 20:13, 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.

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)
 * In the past, projects have asked us to make banners for them. And, in this case, we aren't talking about edits, persay, but one of fifty plus banners which are optional to use on userspace.  Also, please keep the discussion on your page per talk rules.  I'll ask on WikiProject Kentucky on what their opinion is on the banner, and get back to you soon. Miranda 22:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * After having another night to sleep on it, I can see where you're coming from. I'm looking at it now, and it looks a little busy.  My apologies for this.  I guess it's true that it's harder to see the negatives in your own work.  My attempt was for it to stand out, which apparently it did, a little too much. - Steven Williamson (HiB2Bornot2B) - talk 15:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed you are welcome to create your own images, and you aren't required to check with Miranda first. The ad template is not "owned" by anyone, and hasn't been since I moved it out of my userspace three months ago. There's no special requirements that ads have to meet, beyond what's detailed in the paragraph you quoted above (which are necessary only to ensure the template actually works, else we'd happily do without them). "Citing your sources" (in this case, stating that the image is a derivative work) isn't actually necessary (since the image you used is in the public domain, attribution is not required) but it is generally encouraged regardless of the image license. Thanks for your contributions Gurchzilla 11:48, 22 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)

Confederate seal
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)
 * You are the man! This is perfect for my article on the Confederate government of Kentucky! There will be a barnstar forthcoming for this.
 * BTW, my intent is to take Confederate government of Kentucky to FA status, then bring George W. Johnson (Civil War) and Richard Hawes to GA status, and finally, to pass these three articles as WikiProject Kentucky's first featured topic. I'd love to have your help if you're interested. Acdixon 20:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously, any of the sources mentioned in the respective articles are good. I'm presently trying to acquire Civil War in Kentucky: Battle for the Bluegrass by Kent Masterson Brown. It contains a chapter written by Dr. Lowell H. Harrison entitled "The Government of Confederate Kentucky". I know it includes images of Johnson and Hawes from the partial listing on Google Books, and I need both for their respective articles. Both images should be public domain, as I'm sure the original creators have been dead for more than 100 years. I'm also anxious to get a look at the prose and see what article additions I may be able to make from it. I should be able to contribute more consistently since I'm (finally) getting DSL installed Monday. (Thank you AT&T for your "DSL for dial-up price" promotion!) So good to have another active contributor in the project. Between you and User:WildManKY, things are looking up around here for once. Acdixon 20:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

George W. Johnson pic
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)
 * Yes, this is the right guy, and the text may be helpful too. Thanks for the link! Acdixon 16:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

George Johnson ready for GA?
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)
 * Don't sweat the "real life getting in the way" deal. I don't mind to write the Richard Hawes lead if you can't get to it. Believe me, this is still the closest thing to collaboration we've had in this project for ages! Acdixon 19:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hawes
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)


 * OK, the Richard Hawes article is pretty much done. One problem, though. Lowell H. Harrison's Kentucky Governors says Hawes and his wife had two children, but the "Kentucky Had Two Confederate Governors" article says that one of Hawes' four sons was killed in the war. We need to clear this up somehow. I do know (per The Kentucky Encyclopedia) that one of his sons, James Morrison Hawes, was a brigadier general for the Confederacy and did not die in the war. Other than that, I don't have any names of any of the children. Acdixon 13:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Update: The way I read this, there should be another son, Smith Hawes. No mention of him dying in the Civil War. Acdixon 13:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the census info. Where do you get this stuff, anyway? LOL I'm concerned about this being the right person, though. It lists his age as 33; if this was 1850, our Richard Hawes would have been 53. Also, there's no mention of James Morrison Hawes, who was born in 1824. I'll keep searching; this may yet be what we need. Acdixon 14:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Good stuff, then. But now we have another problem. Hawes now has at least 7 children, and at least five were sons. Kind of blows up the source that claimed "The four boys in the family all went to war on the Confederate side-only three boys came back." Maybe one died young?
 * I'm also really curious about the fact that Harrison only mentioned two children. He's one of the major authorities on Kentucky in the Civil War. Maybe I misread something there. That book is in the library near here; maybe I'll double-check on lunch. Thanks again for the awesome research. I think we'll be able to write around this so it doesn't fail GA. Acdixon 16:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Just double-checked the Harrison source. Inexplicably, it records that Hawes and his wife had two children "neither of which survived Hawes." Richard Hawes seems to have been a common name; perhaps this is where the discrepancy comes from. Regardless, I think you're onto the right guy with your census stuff. The answer probably lies in "The Richard Hawes Family of Kentucky", cited by the author of the "Two Confederate Governors" article. Unfortunately, I don't have ready access to that, as there are only three libraries in the state that seem to have it, and two of them have non-circulating copies. (per KYVL)
 * Assuming we don't want to wait for the book to come in on Interlibrary Loan to see what we can find, how about we remove the sentence stating that he had two children, then state that he returned home to find that one of his sons had been killed fighting for the Confederacy, leaving the same source cited? Then, if we ever get clarification on the matter, we can mention how many children he had.
 * I'm also thinking about writing an article on James Morrison Hawes; I should have enough info to get a DYK out of that anyway. If I do, I'll probably add reference to him in the article as well. Anything else need to change before we send this to GA? Acdixon 17:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure we can probably cite microfiche. I'm just worried that if the GA reviewer sees five sons in one source and four in another, it might hurt the nom. Probably not a big deal, though. Of course, with James M. Hawes not listed on the census record, they might think we got the wrong Richard Hawes. I guess we could cite the microfiche, run it through GA, and if it fails, address it then. It's not like we're on a timeline. The FA nom for Confederate government of Kentucky probably won't be ready for a little while yet, anyway. Acdixon 19:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I've done my best to explain the situation with Hawes' children in a non-intrusive way. Please give the article a once-over, fix, clarify, etc. as you see fit, and let me know if you're ready to go GA with it. Acdixon 19:15, 30 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)

Kentucky FA
Sorry, I really don't think I can be of assistance on this issue. Good luck, though!  Cool Blue  talk to me 12:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Confederate government of Kentucky
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)
 * Been a while since I heard from you. Just letting you know that George W. Johnson (Civil War) is on GA hold and probably on the verge of being promoted. What's up on Confederate government of Kentucky? Ready to try for FA? Acdixon 16:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kudos. You had a hand in these too, you know? Sorry if I seem a little impatient. Sometimes I forget that not everyone checks Wikipedia as often as I do! LOL I'll get Confederate government of Kentucky to FAC ASAP. Acdixon 17:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Told you this FA crapola gets annoying. LOL Almost not worth it. Oh well, maybe this one will turn around like the one I did on William Goebel. BTW, Richard Hawes made GA, and the reviewer recommended it for FA. I'm putting it through peer review at WikiProject Biography right now; I can't take more than one FA review at the same time! Acdixon 15:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Heck, the libraries in Kentucky don't have many resources on the Confederate government. Just goes to show that the winners write the history books. The only source I know of that I haven't consulted on this is the actual proceedings of the Russellville Convention. UK, WKU, and EKU have copies, but none of them are circulating. It almost seems as though this editor is mildly POV-pushing, wanting to show what a stupid little minority the Confederate government and its creators were, but there were some serious divisions in the state at the time. Oh well, que sera sera. Acdixon 15:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to see what he comes up with and try to come up with a compromise from there. I think if we show a willingness to work with him and eventually gain his support, it will influence other editors to support as well. At least he's giving us something to work with rather than the vague charges by Madcoverboy who claims it "reads like a screenplay" without really giving too many specifics. Acdixon 18:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've posted it to WikiProject Louisville, WikiProject Kentucky, and WikiProject Military History. I really wish I could get some more opinions vis a vis North Shoreman's insistence on expanding the background section to an obscene length. Without another opinion, I might as well either withdraw the nomination or just let him rewrite it however he wants. I guess we could post something at The Village Pump. It can't go any worse than it is now! Acdixon 20:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hang in there, I think we're making progress. The votes now stand at 2 support, 3 oppose, and 1 comment (that I think will become a support shortly.) I think I'm getting closer to a compromise with North Shoreman (which is wearing me out), but if we land his support, I don't see how it doesn't pass FA. I've left a message on Orlady's talk page politely requesting either further suggestions for improvement or her support; I think we can eventually win her over as well. Not sure about the other oppose vote. "reads like a screenplay" isn't exactly constructive criticism. This reminds me so much of the Goebel nom. What a pain! One way or another, I think we're headed for the end game. Acdixon 14:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no set amount of time. It's basically up to one guy, and whenever he thinks there is consensus, he just closes it. The point of my last post on the FA nom page was to kind of prod him to close (and hopefully promote) it, but so far, it hasn't worked. This one is taking longer than the one I did for William Goebel. Maybe he's hoping for a few more opinions one way or the other to determine if North Shoreman has a point, or if he's just being cantankerous. I'd love to have another support or two myself, but I don't want to be accused of politicking. WPLou really came through for me on the Goebel article, but they haven't really stepped up on this one. Not sure what else we can do but wait. :( Acdixon 15:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The FA closing admin has restarted the nomination of Confederate government of Kentucky; you'll need to re-add your support. He said it was getting difficult to tell what objections remain outstanding, which I agree with. Hopefully, we'll be able to regain the support of all the previous supporters and some of the asinine objects (like the guy who didn't like the subject) will stay away this time. Acdixon 13:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it appears North Shoreman hasn't noticed the reset, and I'm sure as heck not going to tell him. FLs can be promoted after 10 days; not sure if that holds for FAs, but I'm hoping with the widespread unanimous support thus far, that Raul will promote this article on Monday. Stay tuned... an FT nom will be next. Never done that before! User: (talk • contribs • count) 18:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hager Hill, Kentucky
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)
 * You got him to respond, and quickly. Perhaps he was just tired of me. Clearly, he won't be happy until we do every last thing he asks, so I'd consider him a fairly irrevocable oppose at this point. Not only is he still insisting on more about Lincoln's election and slavery, he's challenging the article's comprehensiveness based on some information he found about Bragg's reasoning for holding the inauguration and some details about the ceremony itself. I might try to add some of that if I had access to the sources he mentions, but I don't, so I've thrown out a little summary to the closing admin of my reasoning for going no further with the article. Assuming proper disregard of the improper oppositions, the vote would be 5 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral. I hope that's enough to establish consensus. Acdixon 19:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Flag of Kentucky
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. User: (talk • contribs • count) 17:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)