User talk:Ihcoyc/archive 6

Hey I want to know where you got this from: The Greek word hamartia (ἁμαρτία) is usually translated as sin in the New Testament. In Classical Greek, it means "to miss the mark" or "to miss the target" which was also used in Old English archery.[3] In Koine Greek, which was spoken in the time of the New Testament, however, this translation is not adequate.[4] In other research, this word has been associated with the "hem" of a garment.[citation needed], I can't use wikipedia very well but I want to know why you think that translation was not adequate. Please reply to dlkoepke at gmail dot com if you could. Thanks

About Voodoo Tiki Voodoo Tiki

You've mentioned COI... please, all I want is to create a neutral article about this respectable brand.

I've saw that my article was good enough to be added to Voodoo Tiki (for the first time, please understand that, I was not the original problem or cause of protection). I've saw that my article was good 'enough' is when I've saw an admin observed my user page (with the draft on it) and then unprotected it -wishing me luck!-. That's all.

Then I found a deletion request.

This is my first important article, help me please. I've added more links about the notability in the Deletion page. Give me your opinion. I want to contribute on the Wikipedia, and I'm very concerned about the COI you've mentioned it, because I want to create more articles here. There is no COI at all, since I want to create a neutral page.

I know the page needs to be 'polished'.

All I ever wanted is to create a neutral article. Help me, I will do whatever you suggest, even if that means deleting the article or moving it to my user talk page again. But don't, please, assume good faith.

I am excited about this article, and a little bit disappointed about the chaotic Wikipedia unprotection methods. One editor tells you this and the other tells you the contrary... hmm. Do you see my point? :?

I really appreciate your work, and I know what are you doing. And it is fantastic. You're helping Wikipedia in such a great way. So please help me to help the Wikipedia. And always assume good faith -I'm telling you this because of your COI mention-. That-s all.

Suggestions are welcomed in order to improve that article, I am learning and I want to be an editor someday too.

Thanks!! :) --Ubzy (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

17:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Update: Thanks for your help!! See deletion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubzy (talk • contribs) 19:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion and salting of Propellerhead Software

Hi there Ihcoyc. The article on Propellerhead software has been deleted again - but please hear me out. The article was repeatedly deleted in the past, but admittedly back then it was only a line or two long as far as I can tell and had no sources. However, I recreated the article a week or so ago and improved it considerably - although I did not have the time to add sources. The page was deleted again, but after I requested it be put back to give it some sources and credibility, james086 restored the page yesterday. I subsequently added numerous reliable sources and improved the article as well as I could. I considered the article to be very good quality, but unfortunately it was removed again.

The reasons the article has been deleted given in the deletion log do not apply:

Notability - the company is very well respected and their software won a major award as I referenced in the article. The company developed software with Abbey Road studios - arguably the most famous is the world (The Beatles, Pink Floyd and many others), and this was also referenced in the article. Their software features a regular user technique section in Sound on Sound magazine, which is Europe's largest selling music recording magazine [1], and again, I referenced this in the article. One user said "check Google" on the deletion log, and when doing so, Propellerhead Software come up in the first six searches, and in nine out of the first ten.
No sources - as mentioned, I have thoroughly referenced the article.
Advertising - I do not work for or have any association with Propellerhead software, other than I buy their products and enjoy using them. I consider the article well written, non biased and informative.

I believe this article is deleted so often because, before I began editing it, it WAS a poor article without sources or proof of notability. This also means that any improvements i make are speedily deleted rather than going through a discussion.

Ihcoyc deleted the page, but refused to restore it because he did not want to over rule another administrator who salted it. I have worked very hard on this article and consider it to be worthwhile. I am not an abusive user of wikipedia and I contribute as well as I can to it. Please would you restore this page? Would it also be possible to tag it so it cannot be speedily deleted?

Thanks very much.--Mrtombullen 17:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, you did not delete the page, you only salted it. another admin deleted in. apologies, i just got mixed up with names there. --Mrtombullen 17:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TFA/R revamping

I have proposed revising the WP:TFA/R process. After the recent rejection of my proposal, I researched Old FAs. You were the nominator of an article that was promoted to WP:FA before 2005, and you continue to be an active wikipedian. Your article has not yet been featured on the main page as a WP:TFA. I am wondering if you have ever made an active effort to get it featured and if you are aware of the new TFA/R procedure, which requires an active request. Please respond to my talk page. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help me with a translation

Please tell me if these are even Latin as they are angel names. I want to know what Mursiel and Baviel translate to. Let me know on my talk page no matter what. Thanks. Lighthead 02:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother again...

It must be Aramaic. Is there a way to find somebody that's fluent in Aramaic the same way I found you? Because I was actually looking for somebody like that on the page I found you, because I know that some angel names are Latin in origin to some extent. But could you please let me know how to find someone fluent in that language I'd be much obliged; thanks.Lighthead 03:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lighthead 07:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Thanks for the idea, I did it! Thanks.[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ubiquitous command and control

For I think the first time, I agree 100% with Smerdis of Tlon;

Just wanted to let you know that I got a chuckle out of that. I do try to keep the mood relatively light in my AfD contributions. Still, the sort of language pathology exhibited by that article really annoys, largely because there are so many people who are so highly paid to say very little in a great many words. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just shocked that anyone's voting keep on it. I know I've got a reputation as too much of an inclusionist (see the minor flamewar on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portland Road) but that article's incomprehensible gibberish from top to bottom. Besides, I work in command & control (the charming and definitely-not-a-waste-of-money Metcall complex) and anyone who came out with this kind of crap would be laughed out of the building. People seem to think that a lot of effort's gone into it, when I'm sure the only effort consisted of the one guy who cares cutting-and-pasting his own paper from that conference. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World, flesh, devil

Hey, I'm glad this material helped you. I've been getting reminders to try to finish up the article and move it into the main namespace; would you be up for helping me refine it a little bit? The thing that's been bothering me most is that there are so many Christian citations for "the world, the flesh, and the devil" and no specific answer to who originated it or when. Schoen 23:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Marie-laveau.jpg

Hi. I just deleted this image after we received a complaint from the copyright holder. You had tagged it as being in the public domain, and had reverted another editor who had correctly marked that as lacking evidence. Please go through your image uploads to make sure that they have proper copyright, source, and license information. Thanks. Jkelly 04:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless we can show that Franck Schneider died more than seventy years ago or that the painting was first published before 1923, we cannot be sure that the painting is in the public domain in the United States. If you want to get into a fight with the Louisiana State Museum over their claim of copyright, please do it somewhere other than on our servers. Further, in the future, don't re-upload media deleted due to copyright concerns without discussing it first. Jkelly 18:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, I would like to assure you that I share your sentiments about people locking up the public domain, and routinely respond to attempts to do so with a polite but firm refusal to take down media that we are making a sensible Bridgeman claim on. In this case, however, we have no evidence that the original is in the public domain; we wouldn't be having this conversation about the Catlin original. Jkelly 19:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good. Do we have access to the Catlin original, either as a model or to republish directly? Jkelly 22:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, eh?

You may wish to weigh in on the proposed deletion of the category Moral Panics. --TheEditrix2 17:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on your username

Hi there! Just for your information, a discussion over the appropriateness of your username has taken place on the WP:RFCN forum today. For your convenience, here's a permalink to the (rather speedy) closed discussion: [2]. Cheers & Happy Editing! Миша 13 19:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to appear to put you under fire, but I posted your username at WP:RFCN for some additional attention because I felt the speedy closure didn't allow it to be evaluated on its merits. Reswobslc 08:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ihcoyc. While there had been some discussion here about whether your username met Wikipedia policy on what usernames editors can use, the result was to allow it, and that discussion has now been closed. If you would like to see what concerns were raised, you can still find that discussion in the page history (here). You do not need to change your username. Thank you. -- ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Grandfathered", huh?[3] I bet you'd prefer "Divine" and banned, rather than bad, losing it, dull, unattractive, boring, beyond caring, and representing yesterday stereotypes! :-) Niko Silver 13:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it's fine by me if it's fine by everybody else. I suppose for anyone else who brings it up, just refer them to that link. Reswobslc 18:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gaelscoil na Daróige

In the AfD for this article, you commented "delete without prejudice" in case the article was recreated in English. It has now been translated...would you be interested in revisiting your comments? AKRadecki 21:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Ericstenbock.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ericstenbock.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Lokal _Profil 13:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Harris (basketball)

There is a user that keeps vandalizing Paul Harris (basketball). I have reverted it twice (it has been vandalized four times overall) and he keeps coming up with different usernames to edit. He keeps adding the phrase "has a very good friend in harlem new york Daniel Javier a guard at Thurgood Marshall Academy has sing a letter of intent to play at Army next year." Please help. Thanks. Chengwes 23:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale missing for Image:He-man.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:He-man.jpg. However, the image is missing a fair use rationale. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair-use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 17:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFD

Humpty Dumptyism (AfD discussion)

This discussion is probably of interest to you. Uncle G 11:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 27 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Indian whisky, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 15:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Pattismith-horses.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Pattismith-horses.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Bigr Tex 17:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Bloody Mary (person)

I've nominated Bloody Mary (person), an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Bloody Mary (person) satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloody Mary (person) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Bloody Mary (person) during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. BPMullins | Talk 04:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mini revert war on Mace Windu page

Hi lhcoyc, I picked you at random from the list of admins. I hope this is not too much a bother but there is a small revert war going on between me and Vertigo at the Mace Windu page and I'd like to know your thoughts on this. Vertigo's current argument is basically that the Revenge of the Sith novelization represents a certain POV (presumably either that of Windu or the author) and thus its contents shouldn't be allowed into the article. My understanding of WP:NPOV is that this is a misinterpretation but I would like to confirm this with you. Is there some other factor that's causing Vertigo to consistently revert my edits? Up until now he has refused to talk back to me (either on the talk page of Mace Windu or my own talk page; I've already messaged him on his User_talk:Vertigo315 with no response) and I'm beginning to get very annoyed since he's being so unreasonably antagonistic. -- Solberg 04:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Solberg[reply]

Walk ons

Recently, someone added Jake Presutti on to the Syracuse roster template. The kid is definitely on the roster, but do you think he's Wikipedia-worthy? He appeared in three games in his college career, and on top of that, a lot of the article isn't cited. I was thinking about nominating it for deletion because I think only scholarship players are really worthy of being in here. I posted this to your talk page because of your participation in the Matt Gorman deletion discussion. Thoughts? Chengwes 08:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. I guess you're right... Walk-on or not, he still plays at the Division-I level. Some of that stuff, especially in the trivia section, needs to be taken out, though. Chengwes 19:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took the trivia section out. There was just no way to verify that and it didn't belong in Wikipedia, anyway. All the career info was listed on his bio page on the Syracuse website, so I just cited to that. I also took out the part about impressing his team with basketball knowledge and his left-handed jumpshot. What do you think about the page, now? Chengwes 16:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody Mary (folklore)

You made some edits to add sources and an image... I am curious, does the book you cite make an explicit reference to Bloody Mary, or was the cite only supporting that the mirror ritual existed? As far as I know, the "Face in the Mirror" article listed in ELs and refs was the first to connect the two concepts. DreamGuy 04:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I was not aware of that book. Do you know if that author credits the "Face in the Mirror" article for that concept or references it in any way?

Oh, and you also said that the cards do not show any ideas about skulls, that's not true, as several of those Halloween theme cards do feature the concept of seeing the skull instead of a lover, sometimes humorously. DreamGuy 04:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks... I'd have to check my copy, and I'm boxing things up for a move right now, but I do not think the Indiana Journal of Folklore piece ever mentioned the older mirror rituals in connection with the Bloody Mary legend. I guess we have no idea of whether he came up with the idea independently or if he took the idea without credit from another source. But if nothing else the Face in the Mirror article also proposes the same theory and so can be added as an additional source at some point. DreamGuy 15:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Ludlum-omaha.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ludlum-omaha.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 01:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indulgence

Hi Ihcoyc, a long time ago you apparently uploaded this lovely image:

This is described as an authentic indulgence by Tetzel, but it has no source. Are you sure it is authentic? I'd like to see a source, because, to my mind, the writing and language looks suspiciously like a modern fake. I'm not an expert and can't prove anything right now, but this doesn't look like 16th century German to me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer - of course I didn't mean to imply you faked it. :-) But what shall we do now, would it be a lot of trouble going back and trying to find the source again? By the way, this is an authentic indulgence from that time; you'll see the difference. The whole language and orthography of this one is essentially modern (like, "ü" written with a modern umlaut, "u" and "v" distinguished in the modern way, modern capitalisation almost throughout, modern punctuation... and the letter shapes have more of a later feel too, but I could be mistaken about that.) Would it be safer to remove the image from article space? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pattismith-horses.jpg

I have tagged Image:Pattismith-horses.jpg as {{orphaned fairuse}}. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. If this image is being used as a link target instead of displayed inline, please add {{not orphan}} to the image description page to prevent it being accidentally marked as orphaned again. Bigr Tex 20:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Demetris Nichols

Hey -- I need your help again. There has been an IP address user that has been vandalizing the page of Demetris Nichols. He's made five edits to that page, and despite a bot reverting it, the bot itself wasn't able to catch everything. I had to manually edit it back to a good version. Would you mind looking into blocking the IP address? Thanks. Chengwes 08:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further inspection, there are actually two IP addresses that are vandalizing the page. One is Contributions/24.58.25.118, and the other is 24.58.17.137. The IP address ending in 137 has been vandalizing this page for the last couple of days, while the one ending in 118 is fairly recent. They might even be sockpuppets of one another, although the edits are not entirely similar.

Deletion Discussion

There is a deletion discussion on Jake Presutti that you might be interested in participating in. Chengwes 06:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding to the discussion. There are two points that I really agree with you on -- (1) It makes for a very difficult task for Wikipedia Admins to determine what's "notable" and what's not if this kind of deletion goes through; (2) coming from Syracuse University, there is absolutely zero coverage of NBA basketball, and the Orange grab all of the press coverage. Again, thanks for putting your two cents in. Chengwes 16:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

I don't appreciate your comment here. It is uncalled for, and not permitted by policy. --Eyrian 16:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD

Mea culpa, sorry, Jimfbleak 16:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Eyrian

Thank you for your constructive comments. Bearian 16:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Demetris Nichols (again)

24.58.17.137 is at it again. He keeps vandalizing the Demetris Nichols article adding the same stuff about a drug addiction. Would you mind banning this IP? He has a well-documented history of vandalizing this page. Thank you. Chengwes 17:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For your continued support and help with anti-vandalism, and your participation in AfD dicussions. Chengwes 19:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cognitive Modules

In a fit of optimism, I defended a very weak article on a rather worthwhile subject. I don't know if it is worthwhile to start the subject with such a weak first draft. Perhaps naively, I have e-mailed the author to see if he is really willing to wikify it. Let me know your advice. DCDuring 16:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indiscriminate Information

You recently wrote:

The simultaneous claims that this information is both mathematically trivial and "indiscriminate information" only shows that "indiscriminate information" is the new "I don't like it".

I wonder if you would be willing to elaborate on this point. I do not understand how the conclusion follows.

Thanks for any insight you can provide. -- Dominus 02:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. You made that remark in this article; sorry I didn't link it earlier. -- Dominus 03:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thou might like the hoi polloi article

Hello, great work on thou. Congratulations on getting it to FA. I have been doing some work on hoi polloi in the hopes of getting it to FA status. I wonder if you would be interested in reviewing or contributing to this article? I am not a linguist and I think this would go faster if someone of your skill would review the article. Thanks for your consideration. Johntex\^talk 16:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Mad-sci.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Mad-sci.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 12:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Liftarn 12:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mad-sci.jpg.

Truth is, I frankly don't know where this image came from anymore. It was more than five years ago since I found it, and all I remember is that it was from some serial or another that was being freely distributed by a number of sources. No one fussed about that sort of thing in 2003.

I would note, though, that the image has been adopted by dozens of users, and apparently made it into a popular userbox. Its deletion would break all of those. Collateral damage is not a consideration, I guess. I suspect that a link to the made-for-Wikipedia image that now resides (and replaced this old one) on the mad scientist page might be an adequate substitute for most of these uses, but it would require that each user page that has it be edited. Is there a bot for this? - Smerdis of Tlön 18:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mad-sci.jpg is used at Boffin where it says it's Dr Alexander Thorkel (Albert Dekker) from Dr. Cyclops (1940) so we have a source. Is there a way to check if the copyright has been renewed? // Liftarn

Good - someone recognized it. If I had known that, I would have mentioned it at least. There must be some way of telling if it has been renewed, but I do not know what that might be. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you go to http://cocatalog.loc.gov/ and check it there. It is listed but the problem is that I don't know how to interpret the results. // Liftarn

Nothing in there seems to indicate that a renewal is on file. The first item involves a lunchbox apparently made from reusing the movie art; this suggests a lack of renewal, rather than otherwise. The other listings would appear to be for compilations of various kinds that include it. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll move it to Commons then. // Liftarn

Tour de franzia

Sorry for making you to spent one of your always interesting and insightful AfD comments on a drinking game. I relisted it somewhat mechanically in the wake of some others, but would better have either commented myself or simply left it, as the outcome was indeed obvious.--Tikiwont 15:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vito in moyu ?

Dear Ihcoyc, I have been looking for a Latin motto to be translated and hoping you do not mind, am asking you, mainly because of your support for local solar time and the motto comes from a Sundials specifically Sundial#Vertical_Direct labelled South and West facing dial Norfolk UK – two faces of a four faced vertical direct dial - or [4]. I believe the text to be vito in moyu I have got as far as vita : life, way of life. in : into, toward, against. OR in : in. After that I am lost. I would be grateful for any assistance. Yours Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 14:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

many many thanks. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 11:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Samaritan.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Samaritan.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 00:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?

I'm pretty sure that both of this user's edits are vandalism. But I just wanted a second pair of eyes to make sure. Chengwes 02:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Halloween!

File:Halloween Hush Puppies.jpg

Photograph of my Halloween-themed Hush Puppies plush basset hounds in my bedroom.

As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish my twenty favorite fellow Wikipedians a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On October 31, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Royal fish, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Well done Smerdis. A very unusual curiousity. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive

Please don't ever call my edits vandalism and never undo BLP removals without first discussing it with the person that performed the action - it is a blockable offence to undo such actions. violet/riga (t) 23:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

violet/riga

I do not believe that User:Violetriga is "vandalising" pages (although I understand how it might seem that way) or that they are giving "dubious" grounds. Wikipedia must be very strict in its material regarding living people and being labeled a Marxist if you are not could potentially be very upsetting, therefore being conscientious in protecting Wikipedia is a good thing. However I do not believe that User:Violetriga has been acting in the most constructive manner and has not followed a proper process. I would definitely agree to an RFC on the article, and get a resolution one way of the other. I would consider an RFC on the use once I look at the history of the examples you provided and feel that the same disregard for process has been shown. However the RFC policies are very clear on the level of resolution that needs to happen, including 2 notices on the talk page by 2 different people. JenLouise 14:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Poetry Roll Call

WikiProject Poetry is having a revival and we are trying to determine who is still active in the project. If you are, please answer this roll call by placing an *asterisk* next to your name on the list of participants here. Thanks, Wrad 00:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Faxlore

Faxlore, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Faxlore satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faxlore and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Faxlore during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ridernyc 08:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK Aspidochelone

On 22 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Aspidochelone, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 06:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Thanksgiving!

I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: JM and using brains

I was trying to shift through the strange claim of "random facts" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jayne Mansfield in popular culture (2nd nomination) and voila... I came across User:MPS/It's ok to use your brain. How did you come across that one? Simply cool. Wow! Thanks, dear, you made my day. Just one more thing, I split this popular culture stuff out of the main article to keep its size under control, a thorny issue when judging article quality. I hope the community will see the stand-alone merit of the article. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guiding Hand Social Club

When you say the sources are not reliable could you walk me through why you think so? I need to firm up my understanding on this matter. A critique of the sources in say an article like Vampire lifestyle would also help my understanding. EVE Online is quite addictive and having scary players around to contend with gives some hand-shaking moments worse than seeing horror flicks. Adrenaline rushes like that a few times a month can be worth the $15... IMO. Alatari (talk) 15:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At least historically, self-published sources like gaming blogs and commentary are not considered reliable within the meaning of the policy. I am not fully convinced of the truth of this, myself; there are a number of game wikis out there that seem to provide information that is accurate and helpful. But that is what current doctrine holds. That other articles also contain dubious sources is generally dismissed with reference to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; I have issues with that essay too. I suppose the bottom line for me is that if this sort of play is allowed and encouraged within that game (for allowing it strikes me as identical to encouraging it, given the apparent gains realized), it would need to receive some kind of notice outside the gaming community. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I watched the WoW griefing video on the funeral service and I just wanted to beat those players senseless. Civility is dead. If they really care about those parents loss they would pull the video then replace it with an apology. Was any punitive action taken on those players? And the comments under the vid...*Grrrr* As gaming becomes part of the majority of peoples lives real world consequences will be unavoidable and legal actions will follow. Alatari (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

What would it take to join the poetry side of wikipedia?

Rianon Burnet 14:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so very much!!! :) If you would please I would like it if you could guide me on what to do next. I'm not much of a computer person and don't know how to pursue my pasion.... Thank you and have a wonderful day!!!!

Rianon Burnet 15:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Poetry she means. Could you help guide her in article writing and in improving poetry articles which need work? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 15:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Thanks........... Know when I edit it, or add too it, do I just do it then check in with someone or how does that work?????

Rianon Burnet 15:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you I got it!!

Rianon Burnet 17:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Narrative poetry

Hey, good job on restoring that big deleted chunk of Narrative poetry. How did I miss that while perusing the revision history the day before? Eep! Dreamyshade (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Lady

I just saw your comment at Dragon Lady (etymology). I put up the original article and--as I indicated--I was stuck on where to put it and how to label it. Sorry. I think your suggestion is fine, except that Dragon Lady (character) is already in use. "Stock character" is great, as is "stereotype". Anything that makes it easier to find for users is good.Jeffmatt (talk) 07:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]