User talk:Roger McCoy

Welcome!

Hello, Roger McCoy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Spinboy 00:47, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

JW related work

Hey Roger! welcome to WP. Feel free to talk to me on my 'talk' page. george 02:48, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Re: Grey Hulk ("Joe Fixit")

I see why you made the edit, but there wasn't a contradiction per se between para 1 & para 2 here. The first paragraph ("The Grey Hulk personality briefly appeared (with green skin) towards the end of the Hulk's original series in the 1960s") referred to the Hulk from the latter part of IH (vol 1) #4, and #5-6, and the ("Contrary to occasional belief, the "Joe Fixit" Grey Hulk has little in common with the Hulk from Incredible Hulk (volume 1) #1 beyond the skin colour, and they are not the same version of the character.) referred to the Hulk from IH (vol 1) #1-2 and the early part of #3 (which itself had green skin for the latter two issues). Have you read IH v1, OoC? - SoM 09:59, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have it in "Essential" format, which I've read through a few times. (I actually have a mostly-complete collection of the Hulk, with the only significant gap being from around #110-190.) Although you are correct that it wasn't a contradiction "per se", the following phrases are confusing at best when played against each other:

"The Grey Hulk personality briefly appeared (with green skin) towards the end of the Hulk's original series in the 1960s, and again re-emerged in the mid-80s with the grey skin which would become associated with this incarnation just prior to the start of the lengthy Peter David run." (Boldface added.)

"Contrary to occasional belief, the "Joe Fixit" Grey Hulk has little in common with the Hulk from Incredible Hulk (volume 1) #1 beyond the skin colour, and they are not the same version of the character."

The first sentence seems to indicate that the same character was "re-emerging", rather than a different character making an appearance, whereas the second seems to indicate the opposite. Another reason for the change, though, was because of a comment that Rick Jones had made in #326 in regard to the newly re-emerged grey hulk:

"Then, there was a muffled, crashing sound -- the tank shattering, as you -- that is, the Hulk... the original Grey hulk... broke loose." (Italics and boldface preserved from the original text.)

Of course, it is entirely possible that Rick was making a faulty assumption or referring solely to skin color, but I don't really think he was. If you compare Al Milgrom's Grey Hulk with the original Grey Hulk as written by Peter David, they are actually very similar. However, both Grey Hulks rapidly evolved: Lee's Grey Hulk turned green and went through numerous other changes, including a gradual personality change, while Milgrom's Grey Hulk rapidly moved in another direction, especially once taken over by Peter David. It's interesting what David himself wrote in the 30th anniversary issue (#393) under the guise of Doc Samson in the article "Psychological Rmifications of Gamma Radiation":

"The first Hulk, a gray-skinned behemoth, personified a regression from the superego to the ego. This Hulk houses Banner's will power and decision making, upon which Banner projected his rage. [...] At first the Hulk transformed at sunset and reverted to human form at dawn. Although the Hulk's skin pigment soon changed to green, he maintained the disposition of the gray Hulk for a while, even when encountering Betty. [...] The Hulk's emerald skin healed around the bullet, which had an unexpected positive effect... But even then the gray Hulk's savagery manifested... [...] General Thaddeus 'Thunderbolt' Ross interfered with my subsequent attempt to treat this condition, causing the green Hulk persona to possess Rick Jones. Banner subsequently used the gamma ray projector upon himself, little realizing that the gray Hulk was minipulating him from within. He transformed into his initial gray state."

Although there is definitely some room for interpretation, I feel that David was giving the strong impression that these two Hulks were the same, and, in fact, the gray hulk existed, albeit in a submerged state, throughout all of the first 325 issues before he re-emerged. This certainly allows some time for the personality of the character to evolve.

Just to play it safe, I tried to leave some room for interpretation, and I hope I succeeded in acknowledging both opinions. If your viewpoint differs, feel free to change it. The text, that is. ;-) Roger McCoy 04:01, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Humanbot

Oy. You are meant to check your edits. Don't just press "Save page". r3m0t ^talk 14:12, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

I generally do, but apparently I didn't look closely enough on this one. "Teh = the" seemed pretty safe, so I made the mistake of breezing through it too quickly. My mistake. Thanks for pointing this out; I'll be more careful next time. --Roger McCoy 03:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

dab keyboard

Sorry for the intrusion i was just dabbing keyboard. I chose Keyboard instrument for your User page in preferrance to Musical keyboard. Please change if you think the alternative is more appropriate Gnangarra 15:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invite

User:Clamster5/Invite Clamster5 22:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between Stargate and Stargate SG-1

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Differences between Stargate and Stargate SG-1, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Hbdragon88 02:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:FinalCrisis.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:FinalCrisis.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 00:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:FinalCrisis.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:FinalCrisis.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.BetacommandBot 18:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Differences between Stargate and Stargate SG-1

Differences between Stargate and Stargate SG-1, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Differences between Stargate and Stargate SG-1 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/Differences between Stargate and Stargate SG-1 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Differences between Stargate and Stargate SG-1 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. Chris! _ct 02:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek recurring characters

Hi Roger, I notice that there isn't a Category:Star Trek recurring characters, even though it is on your new template. Has it been speedily deleted, or have you not got round to creating it yet? I'm happy to help if you need anything. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just set it up. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:StarTrek50.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:StarTrek50.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.BetacommandBot (talk) 11:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion

Can you help with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meng Keo Pichenda? We need Khmer speakers. Thanks. Fences&Windows 22:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sorry but im deleting the third revival article

Hello User Roger McCoy I know we wanted the twilight zone to be back but since i cant find proof im afraid i have to delete it i know how you feel but maybe there would be hope someday but for now this should be delete unless you have proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belrien12 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No skin off my nose. I added the "needs citation" because I thought the whole thing sounded fishy myself. --Roger McCoy/រ៉ាចើ (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry i thought you are the one who wrote the article my bad! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belrien12 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Heron

Just to let you know, I've reverted your removal of Category:Living persons from Fred Heron. Basically, we have to assume he's alive unless it's proven otherwise, and per Wikipedia's policy on sources, simply someone saying they're a friend of the person isn't enough. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Fred Heron.)

Is there an obituary in the local newspaper? If you can get me the name of the paper, I can probably find a copy of the obituary on line. Just place a note on User talk:Cymru.lass with the name of the paper(s) and I'll do my best. --- cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 04:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the local paper's online edition; he isn't listed. Nonetheless, like the other user, I knew Fred personally. I'm probably going to be at his funeral next week. He's not in the obits. He's not likely to make the news. I have no idea where we're going to get the source from.

Note that I didn't even list him as "dead". I just removed the listing of him being "living", which is demonstrably inaccurate. When you reverted that change, you weren't removing unsourced information; you were *adding* unsourced (and inaccurate) information. --Roger McCoy/រ៉ាចើ (talk) 08:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not quite so simple, though. I wasn't so much adding the category as reverting an unsourced removal. Again, I'd like to direct you to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Fred Heron. ~~—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.101.154.87 (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)~~ --- cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 23:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC) (accidentally left this as an IP)[reply]

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Fred Heron.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Fred Heron.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, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. 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 created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 20:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC that you may be interested in...

As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Pilot (television episode) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pilot (television episode) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pilot (television episode) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Roger McCoy. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Roger McCoy. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:FinalCrisis.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:FinalCrisis.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Roger McCoy. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Crisis (DC Comics)

The article Crisis (DC Comics) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Primary sources and original research since at least a decade ago. Subgroup of DC Comics crossover events, listed at Publication history of DC Comics crossover events. The biggest flaw, it points that not all events count as a "crisis", but does not clarify which is the criteria for that, as not even having "crisis" in the title seems to be it.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Cambalachero (talk) 17:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Crisis (DC Comics)

The article Crisis (DC Comics) has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Crisis (DC Comics) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Crisis (DC Comics) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crisis (DC Comics) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Cambalachero (talk) 13:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]