User:Hahnchen/Archive6

Wii Play

Is there a reason you reverted that? It was the official North American box art. TJ Spyke 22:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the American version of the game hasn't been released yet, you can't even be sure that it's going to be the final version. The European version has been out for weeks already, and the art carries the theme expressed in the original Japanese box art [1]. - hahnchen 22:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I put that so people wouldn't replace it yet. Fine, then I won't revert it if other people change the box art before 2/12. TJ Spyke 02:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It's just that the phrasing seems to suggest that the box art has to be replaced. - hahnchen 02:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

In the same way we don't have warnings at for future games such as WarioWare: Smooth Moves or old games such as Grand Theft Auto (video game). - hahnchen 02:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Sven Co-op

Re: your comments at deletion review, [2], I agree, the article was unsourced, but that doesnt make any of the information invalid or incorrect - anyone who has played the game knows that its fine. Why didn't the relevant editors simply tag it with an 'unsourced statements' tag and wait for someone to sort it out? Deleting it was unneccessary. Thedreamdied 21:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I have Hahnchen's talk page watched because I also set up a deletion review for the old Sven Co-op article. I withdrew that, however, since it's not completely necessary to overturn the deletion. A new article can be created at the old namespace. Apparently, the original reason that the SC article was deleted was because it did not assert the mod's notability, in addition to the comparitively insignificant factor that it wasn't really sourced. I am working on a new article for Sven Co-op which you can find here: User:MarphyBlack/Sven Co-op (The old article can be seen here as well). I haven't actually had to much time to write up anything new or perhaps salvage any of the old bits as of yet, but I would welcome your help with building a new article. The awards section should give a bit of proof to its notability (And I'm sure there's more to include) and the PC Zone articles are non-trivial third party published sources that could be integrated into the article to help establish it more. MarphyBlack 21:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I think that we should get this article back on wikipedia asap. Thedreamdied 21:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Metal Gear Solid FAC

The problems you have addressed on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Metal Gear Solid (1998 video game)/archive1 have been taken care of. If you are wondering, the PC information is located in the Integral section. Thanks for your suggestions. Are there any more problems? --TheEmulatorGuy 06:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Edge magazine issue #169

Apparently this issue of Edge magazine contains some sort of information related to GameFAQs and/or FAQ writing. Can you help me get a copy of the relevant information? Thanks in advance. --- RockMFR 06:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I normally email the magazine scans to people. So if you enable Wikipedia email and send me an email, I can reply with the scans. Or you could just drop your email off here and I'll send you them. - hahnchen 17:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Enabled now. --- RockMFR 22:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You still need to email me first. Anything will do, but I can't attach files otherwise. - hahnchen 00:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Adminship

What am I missing? You aren't an admin that I can see, haven't run either. Can't see an ask in your archives. Would you run if nominated? Hiding Talk 17:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not interested right now. My history of "telling things like it is" tends to lead to some interpretations of incivility. But thanks for considering me anyway. - hahnchen 17:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

When I am interested, I'd probably stick my name down on the "list of high edits that aren't admins" list. - hahnchen 17:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll add it to my watchlist. Hiding Talk 17:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Twiggy promo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Twiggy promo.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 14:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This image has been restored per decision at WP:DRV. Further discussion about copyright status should continue on the image talk page. ~ trialsanderrors 02:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

PS You might want to contact the webmaster of the Twiggy website and ask for more information on the photo (photographer, copyirght owner). Currently sourcing information is insufficient. ~ trialsanderrors 08:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey

I noticed your comment on one of the webcomic AfDs, and wanted to check if you knew about this. Many others are claiming notability based on the same award. - Francis Tyers · 00:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Need a source

[3] - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It has no source. We don't know that it was scanned by anyone, as it could have been taken from an external web site. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. What is relevant, is that the copyright holder is Nintendo, and I have confirmed that it is the official box art. - hahnchen 17:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Simple, vandalism are edits that are meant to hurt WP or an article. What you and I have in this situation is a content dispute, neither of us are vandalizing the page (and I don't appreciate you telling others I am a vandal). I am going to get some sleep now, but tomorrow I will set up a move request to get a discussion on this (or maybe start a regular discussion first and then maybe a move request). TJ Spyke 11:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Then why label my edits as vandalism. If you see the complaint I made on NawlinWiki's talk page, you'll see that I only labelled your vandalism of the redirect, something which I also admitted to. - hahnchen 11:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You'll have to excuse me, i've been up all night (it's 7:18 where I live). I didn't mean too. TJ Spyke 11:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Cow-on pole, with horns.jpeg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Cow-on pole, with horns.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Hnsampat 18:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Devil May Cry

I've done a run through of the article. I believe that everything you've mentioned has been handled. If you wouldn't mind doing a second read-through, it'd be appreciated. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 01:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Famitsu

The only reference to Famitsu's reaction to Devil May Cry I found was this[4], that unlesss you understand this of course, so is the information on IGN enough? I mean they talk about the scores and the article says that they awarded the game a "Gold Award" with scores of 8,8,9 and 9, so what do you say? if your responce is positive I will add this in a few hours, about the prose I will let Lankybugger deal with it his skills at that kind of things are better than mine. -凶 23:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

That is a suitable source. Just stick it into the review box for the time being with a link. But the prose still isn't good enough - hahnchen 00:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Done, I will leave Lankybugger a message about the prose, Peace. --凶 00:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Iridion 3D FAC

I've added in the Edge review; the EGM review was basically not possible. I'd like it if you coul look the article over now. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 17:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Added some and made revisions as per your suggestions. Take a look! Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 23:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Devil May Cry 3

Cool, can you please e-mail a copy of the review to n-eiji@hotmail.com ; I found an interview with the game's producer but it's on french and it will take me some time to translate, anyway thanks for the info. -凶 00:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll try and get you a copy of it tomorrow. I don't have instant access to a scanner right now. - hahnchen 17:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. -凶 20:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, I couldn't make it today. I can get you a copy tomorrow noon guaranteed. - hahnchen 18:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the review I will see what I will take from it now. --凶 04:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Iridion 3D FAC

I've followed up on suggestions for the article, and I was hoping you could take another look and either change or hold your opinion of the newer version. Sincerily, David Füchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 00:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Zelda Oracles FAC

Since you commented at the previous FAC for The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages, I thought you might be interested in the restarted nomination. Pagrashtak 13:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Another FAC thing

Like the last five threads, this is about an FAC. 1080° actually; Last week you left some comments, and I just had a quick question and needed clarification or a second look through on it if you could spare some time. It would be most appreciated.--Clyde (talk) 03:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

What exactly would you like me to comment on? There doesn't seem to be any specific points. I still don't think that the substance of the reception section is up to scratch. I'd still much rather prefer reviews stick to the larger websites, and for a game from 1998, use print references. IGN/GameSpot et al. did not have the same relevance and readership that they have now, whereas magazines such as EGM and Edge would (and arguably still do). I'm still not sure about the source for the sales figures, the source cited uses vgchartz.com, I have no real experience with that website. - hahnchen 10:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The point I was requesting a response was "I'm not sure what are you referring to with a "why did Nintendo embark on a Snowboarding sim?"." Regarding sales figures, I have no real experience with any websites, so I do not know if swivel of vgchartz or to be trusted. Another problem I was requesting comment at the FAC is I am having trouble with finding print resources. I subscribe to Game Informer, which does not have its 1080 review online or in any archives. Do you know a place where I could aquire a print review of any substance? I looked at the Magazine section of the VG project and it was missing the months I needed. Would it be worth contacting those users anyway? I'm not sure. I haven't given up looking, but it is certainly very difficult.--Clyde (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Your comment on the Kung Fu Hustle FAC

You have mentioned a problem with the prose in the plot. So, what are the specific problems? Please elaborate and suggest possible fixes. Thank you--Kylohk 17:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Tanya Kach

If you've been following the DRVs lately, you'll notice that they are, effectively, blind AfDs, except with a lot of folks thrown in who are only discussing process. So far, there has not been a willingness in any of these debates to undelete the article merely to have a debate. After all, it's the appropriateness of the topic that is really under discussion. So really, this is just an attempt to focus the debate on the article, which is where it should be. Mangojuice^talk 17:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, forget process for a minute. The point here is that we should come to a consensus through debate about the fate of the article, right? In DRV lately, that debate happens at DRV: it's a blind debate just like this one, but it's not focused properly, because DRV is supposed to be about process, but with the level of participation and the type of participation these debates have seen, there develops a community voice about the article that can't be ignored just because it happened at DRV. If the debate happens at AfD, at least people won't think the point is to debate whether this kind of deletion should be done this way or that way, but will hopefully just work on sorting out what happens to the article. The kinds of points you are making are what people keep calling "process for process' sake." Truth is, we need a new process for this kind of deletion, and the process I've implemented here is a reasonable experiment, and certainly better than the way things have gone lately. So if you're in this to decide properly on the fate of the article, this should work just fine. If you're in this to try to get some kind of wiki-justice, you're barking up the wrong tree -- see WP:PPP -- that may be worth pursuing, but the product is more important. Mangojuice^talk 18:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Administrator Reedy Boy taking off! Hello Hahnchen, Thankyou for voting in my RfA. You will be pleased to know that it has been successful!! Meaning that I, Reedy Boy, am now an English Wikipedia Administrator. It passed with a suprising 47/0/0, and I really am grateful of all your support, and I hope that I live up to your high expectations! If there is anything I can do to help you out, please, do not hesitate to contact me! Yours, Reedy Boy 16:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tanya Kach

Hi,

Just to draw your attention to the successful DRV, and the speedy-closed AfD... not sure how you'd like to proceed, but I'm less than happy. Best wishes, Xoloz 14:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any ideas? I could take it to DRV again, but this really is a pain. I personally think it should be speedily restored and AFDed, or "eventified" as I put forward the DRV. Doc Glasgow's has totally misinterpreted your closure in relation to BLP "concerns". Whereas Doc Glasgow seems to find a DRV closure unimpeachable when he agrees [5], he seems to overturn all the arguments and discussions put forward in a DRV whose outcome he disagrees with. It's incredibly poor form. BLP cases are not as clear cut as Glasgow thinks, and his admin status doesn't make him the decider. He doesn't always delete everything though, here's something which he's kept, on his terms [6].

And in regards to the BLP concerns, there has still no counter-argument to WP:BLP#People_who_are_relatively_unknown, which categorically states that the meme incident at Allison Stokke should be covered as it is the only notable thing. When Glasgow refers to BLP as "that non-negotiable policy", he's obviously turning a blind eye to that part. - hahnchen 17:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Request your comments

I created a proposal. Please comment here.

Note: Please analyze each proposal on their own validity - do not reject a proposal just because you rejected a different one. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think your proposals will make much difference to the way people perceive naming conventions. You've placed your own opinions onto which arguments should be seen as stronger than others, whereas other editors will have different biases. For example, you championed the Dark Chronicle -> Dark Cloud 2 move, because of your weighting of arguments, whereas I would disagree because my weightings are different. The whole point about the Japanese name that I make, is not because I give a shit about Japan or its culture. I don't, the games I play involve guns and crowbars. I make the point about the Japanese names, because it sometimes shows an odd one out, where a name was changed only to pander to one audience and was not the intended name. If you see the Yoshi's Universal Gravitation move I kicked off, it meant less to me that the game was released in Europe first, but that the only region where the name was changed was North America. And the Mario Strikers Charged move that I commented on, I'm pretty apathetic about that, I really don't care as I don't think the arguments to move it are strong enough, hence I've gone with the whatever suits me best argument. Not that I'd ever use it for a move I care about, as can be seen from the YUG move. - hahnchen 19:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mercury Meltdown Revolution.jpg

I Noticed you recently uploaded Image:Mercury Meltdown Revolution.jpg but you forgot to add a source to it, without a source it will be deleted. Salavat 00:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You've misunderstood the concept of sourcing when it comes down to non-user created material. Please see User:Hahnchen/Archive5#Image:Exotica_II.jpg which links to various threads discussing the issue. - hahnchen 07:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok im i think im up with non-free content sourceing things. So what you are saying is that instead of a webpage source, all you have to list is a developer and publisher link and it should be good, coz ive had some problems with people tagging my stuff before. Thanks if you can gimme an answer. Salavat 14:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Generally, yes. Images such as screenshots and box art, the copyright holder is important, not whoever scanned it. A web source can still help however in making sure that the image is accurate, but not necessary. If you're using a fair-use photo of a person though, you need a more detailed source as the copyright holder is less likely to be as clear cut as a developer/publisher, and there's a larger chance of it being misattributed. The veracity of such photos are also harder to verify. - hahnchen 19:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The Pit (arcade game)

Whoops, thanks for catching my errors on The Pit (arcade game), particularly the categories! Serves me right for using cut-and-paste from Crazy Climber. Nandesuka 00:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Metroid Prime 3: Corruption

Please do not switch the image without discussing it on the talk page. There is a reason why the lower resolution version is used. --Pekaje 18:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Already countered at User_talk:Salavat#Don.27t_upload_anything_from_IGN_-_Image:Metroid_Prime_3_-_Corruption_Coverart.jpg and now Talk:Metroid_Prime_3:_Corruption#Non-free_image_use_.28box_cover.29. Maybe I should have gone there first, but I remove images tagged with watermarks without question if there is an alternative. - hahnchen 18:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, a more detailed edit summary would also have helped, given that the image was switched repeatedly earlier today. Didn't know about the {{furd}} template, so thanks for that. --Pekaje 18:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out to me there was a watermark, i didnt even notice. Salavat 01:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Thanks for uploading Image:MySims.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 21:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Toxic Grind.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Toxic Grind.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Beach_Life.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Beach_Life.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 17:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 17:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see User:Hahnchen/Archive5#Image:Exotica_II.jpg for a selection of threads regarding sourcing concerns for scanned images. The copyright holder has been adequately credited, whoever pressed the scan button is irrelevant, one has enough information to check the veracity of such an image. - hahnchen 17:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)