User talk:Hahnchen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User:Hahnchen)
Jump to: navigation, search
Talk page policy:
  • If you leave me a message, I will reply on this page.
  • If I have left you a message, I will be watching your page, I would prefer your replies there.

Hahnchen


Archived Discussions[edit]

Orphaned non-free image File:Wages of Sin Box Front.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Wages of Sin Box Front.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Sin[edit]

If you object the redirect, fine, but if you nominate an article for deletion, and recommend it for a redirect, it gets thrown out. It's okay to oppose it, but your reason is nonsense. Sergecross73 msg me 23:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Nominate it for deletion if you don't want it, familiarise yourself with the process, delete and redirect is an acceptable nomination. You can't remove a page's content without going through any kind of process, that's ridiculous. - hahnchen 23:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Youve been around a long time - you know you can redirect articles without discussion if theres have valid reason - (like being unsourced for 8 years.) WP:KEEP used to say that advocating for something other than deletion is a rationale for a speedy keep, though they recently reworded it to allow for redirects too, which is different from what I've experienced years past in situations like this. Anyways, regardless, I can't find any sources for the SiN add on, so I guess I'll see you at AFD. Sergecross73 msg me 00:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Thing.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Thing.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 25 July[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Heroes of the a Lance redirect[edit]

So let's talk turkey.

Firstly, the video game is a particularly notable one (usually because it's on some "worst ever" list or another), so it may be that it is the primary topic. But I remain unconvinced, because of the long-term significance; the DragonLance series of books has been in continuous publication (with new novels released periodically) for over 30 years. While the blurb on the organization (for lack of a better term) there is short, that's because the eight individual characters are listed above in the alphabetical character lists. If you look at the page before the merger, they were grouped together.

Which leads me to my second objection: the target of the redirect was done because it was a standalone article that was merged. As such, it should continue to point to the merge target as per the consensus to merge. Doing otherwise is entirely too potentially confusing to editors who follow links intended to point to the former standalone article that predate the merge, of which there is a great many.

Which in turn brings up my last point. When I raised that same objection in my edit summary, you said I should just fix the link. No, as the one who changed where a redirect was pointing, it was your responsibility to make sure the links were fixed to point to the right target. Just like when a page is moved. Don't make bold changes and expect others to clean up your mess. That's just rude. oknazevad (talk) 15:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The video game is the primary topic. Searching for "Heroes of the Lance" in any search engine brings up the video game, not the characters. The video game article is an actual encyclopedia article, with third party references and provides context for unfamiliar readers. The character article, is full of non-notable minutiae written exclusively for fans of the series. There's so very little on the Heroes in the Lance in the characters article that I find it useless to even hatnote the game for, if they are covered somewhere above, then they should be linked. - hahnchen 17:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
My pint remains that it is up to you to fix all the incorrectly pointing links as the one who changed the redirect, which you've never done. And a Google test (regardless of which search engine) is a poor way to determine primary topic. oknazevad (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nintendo M82[edit]

You undid Czar's redirect and objected to it, please comment on the AfD with your current opinion on what should be done with the article (the AfD is really low in participation and you seemed to hold an opinion that is probably worth hearing out). Thanks!  · Salvidrim! ·  16:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

GamesTM scan request[edit]

Hey, hahnchen. I've been working on bringing Maniac Mansion up to featured status lately—the content was all there after the previous push a few years ago; I just had to copyedit it. Unfortunately, one of the key sources used in the article is a Maniac Mansion + Day of the Tentacle feature in GamesTM, which I can't access for spotchecking purposes. Whoever added the source seems to have mangled it: allegedly the feature's in a 2010 issue, but it looks like you've got it in the one from November 2007 (issue 63). If possible, would you mind scanning it for me? A lot has changed since the article was first expanded, and I'm worried that it might have become unfaithful to the original sources. Thanks a ton. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I do have access to that issue, but it is in storage, so will take two weeks to attain. I have the original GamesTM magazine (2007), and the article must have been republished in a GamesTM Retro Companion in 2010. Please send me an email and I will reply with scans. - hahnchen 10:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch. I'll drop you an email later tonight. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Got the email. Scans look great—thanks a bunch! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

GamesTM Rare scans[edit]

Hi there, hahnchen. I'm gathering Battletoads-related stuff for a future collaboration, and as it turns out you own a couple of games™ issues with features on Rare's history. I wonder if you could take a quick glance at the articles and let me know if there's anything relevant. —Electroguv (talk) 20:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I won't be able to do that until late October. I don't have easy access to my magazines as they are in storage. I already have your email, and will let send you anything I find. - hahnchen 19:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Emailed you a few sources that I found. - hahnchen 21:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
@Electroguv:Took a look through some of my archived magazines today. Nothing else relevant to the history of Rare or Battletoads-era stuff. If I do happen upon anything, I will let you know. - hahnchen 13:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Pokémon The First Movie.jpg[edit]

Right now, I switched preference to "400px". As a result, this image looks bigger at 360px max, and it's a square image, neither portrait nor landscape. With 320px, the image looks adequate enough. If you disagree, complain this to Theopolisme. --George Ho (talk) 14:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Complain about what? What does Theo have to do with anything? I have previously complained about the bot at WT:RFBA and WP:VP. Despite people agreeing with me, it turns out that bot approvers and authors don't actually give a shit when bots enable bad editing.
I also complained about your pointless tagging of already low resolution images at User_talk:George_Ho/Archives/2015/Q3#Be_careful_on_using_non-free_reduce and you continued to do it. - hahnchen 18:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
How low is 360px for a squared image? --George Ho (talk) 21:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Easily low enough. Tag only unambiguously high resolution images. - hahnchen 21:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The 100,000px guideline is an arbitrary number. It has no basis in policy. - hahnchen 21:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Kirby & the Amazing Mirror.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Kirby & the Amazing Mirror.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic UFC 193. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! George Ho (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Hahnchen, I would just like to ask if you are going to be participating in the DRN mediation case for the UFC 193 article. Participation is voluntary, but it would be helpful to have an indication that you are either: a) not going to participate, b) reserve the right to participate, but do not currently wish to, or c) you currently wish to participate. Remember to keep the discussion focused on content, not editors, if you decide to participate. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 05:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

POTD notification[edit]

Hi Hahn,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Fez (video game) cover art.png is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on December 11, 2015. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2015-12-11. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@Czar: FYI. - hahnchen 12:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Heavy Gear II[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Metal Gear Solid V[edit]

I apologize for not understanding that the hatnote at the target article implies a choice of primary topic. I suppose the remaining issue is that said hatnote should perhaps use {{about}} instead of {{for}}, to provide a place to explain why that topic is primary, but I'm not sure what wording to use. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Gamer film[edit]

Not a CSD candidate / you want AFD not AFC No? I definitely wanted AfC for Draft:Gamer (2011 film)—I don't want the work deleted, but I do want a second opinion (a reviewer) to determine whether the article has enough sources for mainspace, which I don't think it does. AfC reviewers also go in depth to explain to new users why their new articles aren't suitable for mainspace. (Look at the user's other recent work—lots of other unsourced stuff.) We're talking about a film with a $20,000 budget with no sign of a wide or influential release... I'd appreciate if you reverted your page move. czar 16:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

You'll get a second opinion, and more, and sooner at AFD. - hahnchen 18:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
The goal isn't deletion—it's introducing new users to WP structure. AfC is designed to help them make articles with suitable sourcing. AfD is a coarse, last option. czar 19:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
If you want to engage with new editors, do so. New editors will get a lot more experience of how Wikipedia works by going through the deletion process, it's preferable to the needless hurdles presented at sporadic times through the AFC process. - hahnchen 19:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • (Cough, cough), still watching from when I placed the DRN notice above - Um, it's a draft article, yes? Drafts are typically deleted only when stale (WP:G13), non-notable (several versions) or by author request (WP:G7). So, unless there is a really, really good reason or it's been abandoned, take it the AfC for reviewing and/or the Teahouse for further help, if needed. AfD should be reserved for the mainspace or blatantly obvious drafts after receiving help. Both can provide useful feedback depending on who votes but the AfC and Teahouse are much easier on new editors than the AfD process. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 23:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
    • No, it's not a draft article. It was a mainspace article that Czar deleted and unilaterally moved into the draft space. Essentially WP:USERFY#NO. - hahnchen 17:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Further clarification sought at Wikipedia_talk:Drafts#Clarification_over_main-space_to_draft-space_moves - hahnchen 02:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
      I hadn't checked the history before commenting, but I would still recommend my above comments for a new user. If they're an old user or experienced user, take it to AfD and churn it through. However, now knowing that this done by Czar, who I know to be at least mostly experienced, they should have likely asked directly at the TeaHouse or for a Peer Review of the article rather than move it into draftspace. I'll have a look at the WT:Draft link. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 23:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)