User talk:Ihcoyc

Older discussions are now at:

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: [1]. 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?[2] 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]