User talk:Hahnchen
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Talk page policy:
Hahnchen |
[edit] Archived Discussions
|
Archive 1 - 15 discussions - Hahnchen 14:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC) |
Archive 5 - 32 discussions - hahnchen 21:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC) |
[edit] My RfA
My request for adminship was successful at 64/1/2! Many thanks for your participation and I will endeavor to meet your expectations. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 09:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Mario Party 8
I wasn't replacing it for no reason. The North American version was what the article originally used before it was replaced (for no reason) by the European cover. If anything, I was improving the article by putting the original cover back in. TJ Spyke 07:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- It wasn't replaced for no reason. I can't see the deleted previous versions, but the logs show that it was deleted because it was unsourced. A new version was uploaded, with adequate sourcing and rationale, that became the baseline. I've been uploading quite a few box arts (Armored Core: Nine Breaker, Flink, Metal Slug Advance), especially given the spate of non-rationale deletions, I'd be pretty pissed off if other users failed to respect the effort and choices I'd made and instead wasted their time overwriting them. There are loads of games missing their covers, if you want to improve articles, then upload some new ones. - hahnchen 17:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mid-core_gamer
Hi, would you consider re-phrasing your deletion comment for this article? It's the creator's first article, and he/she has actually been making an attempt to use citation templates properly. The editor is on the fence about continuing to contribute to Wikipedia as a hobby if this article is deleted. Thanks. Sancho 03:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- The article should be deleted, but I have toned down my language. The editor should be encouraged to visit WP:VG, and the talk pages at WT:VG, where others will be glad to help. - hahnchen 17:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Magazine Request, EDGE April 2004
Hi,
I noticed here that you may have the April 2004 issue of EDGE magazine. I was wondering if you could verify whether this issue is the one with Hideo Kojima and if the transcribed article here is accurate. Thanks! Strongsauce (talk) 02:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- That article does not feature in Issue 135 April 2004 edition of Edge. It's possible that the transcriber got the date wrong, as the April edition would have been released in March given that there are 13 issues every year. If so, then you need Issue 136 May 2004, User:X201 should have a copy of that article. - hahnchen 13:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Magazine Review Request
Hello. I am looking for a review of the game Crimson Skies: High Road to Revenge from the magazine Edge. The archive stated it was in issue E131, which would be the Christmas issue. The WP:VG/M page says you have the issue, and it would be very helpful. Thank you. --Hydrokinetics12 (talk) 02:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's only a short review, so I've popped it up onto ImageShack. Issue 131 - Christmas 2003, page 123. - hahnchen 20:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. --Hydrokinetics12 (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] What the...
Oh you've missed a belter of a candidate for WP:LAME :) I've been watching it for the past few days. It started with this, developed into this and then erupted onto WP:VG where the initial dispute over the order of the Platform field got confused when the order of the Release Date field was dragged into it as well. You've missed a cracker here Hahnchen, you should have set your video for it ;-) - X201 (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Fucking hell, they're actually arguing over which should come first in the platforms field? - hahnchen 16:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Metroid (series)
I replaced the image, let me know if there are any other concerns, I would like to get a support sometime soon :) LOL Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Burnout.jpg
A tag has been placed on Image:Burnout.jpg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Unknown User (talk) 09:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- What was the point in that? The image is appropriately named, rationaled and tagged. Your time would be a lot better spent uploading cover art for articles which do not already have them, TimeSplitters for example. - hahnchen 14:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Spyro 3 FAC
Sales info has been added in. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oops, i missed your edit! I'll take a look at the article and see if there's anything worth adding. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I’ve added in the info under development, I guess that’s the best place for it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Byron Review
Cheers, and a good point about no "The" - I have no idea what came over me to put one on there ... Tim (Xevious) (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Twiggy promo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Twiggy promo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Twiggy promo.jpg
I am removing this image from Twiggy again. The reason is simple. The Foundation has stated that fair use images are not acceptable for things for which a free use image might be obtainable. Please see Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy (which was released after the DRV for this image and after discussion concluded on the image's talk page). In particular, it says this policy Also note that page says this applies for "almost all portraits of living notable individuals". Also note that the top of the page says "The content of this page is an official policy approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. This policy may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored on local Wikimedia projects." The decision of the DRV, which had a number of dissenting opinions, can not erode the Foundation's policy. It is also important to note that her modeling career is but one aspect of her entire career, which has and is covering decades of work. To make an argument that this one image is indicative and expressive of her entire career is weak at best. How she looks now is every bit as important as how she looked then for depiction purposes. If an editor wants to use that image in a particular section of the article where substantial commentary exists about the image (there's barely a reference now), that would be one thing. To use it to depict this person violates Foundation policy. Further, it also violates Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria clause 1 for replaceability, clause 3a for minimal usage, and clause 8 for lack of significance. Further still, it appears no efforhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hahnchen&action=edit§ion=13 Editing User talk:Hahnchen (section) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediat has been made to obtain release rights to the image under a free license. It appears the rights to the image are held Brian Aris, whose contact information is available at http://www.brianarisonline.com/index06k.html. I recommend contacting him for such rights. The effort should be made. Alternatively, you can contact Twiggy via http://www.twiggylawson.co.uk/contact.html to obtain an alternate free license image. If no effort is made to obtain a free license image via these sources, any argument saying this image is irreplaceable by a free image is false on the face of it. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- You've made no discernible effort to engage in discussion on this point, nor any apparent effort to obtain release of rights to the image in question. I've reverted you. I strongly recommend you reconsider further efforts to force this image back onto the article, when it stands so blatantly in violation of the Foundation's opinion on such images, which was published after the DRV. The DRV can not and will not supercede the Foundation's dictum. If you still insist this image should be on the article, make your case at Wikipedia:Fair use review. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've been fairly busy as can be seen from my lack of editting recently. I understand that the Foundation decree was made after the DRV, but I also believe that the image is in accordance to the Foundation opinion. The whole discussion at the DRV concerned the exact concept of fair use images in living people as the foundation dictum, you should not remove the image without any discussion. How did you find out that the rights were held by Brian Aris? At the time, I contacted MovieMarket, who resold the image, and also the Twiggy site webmaster. MovieMarket could offer no help on who held the rights, and understandbly could not release the rights. I received no reply from the Twiggy site. - hahnchen 11:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Incidentally, I have not re-added the image because there is currently a "free use" image. The validity of which I am strongly doubting. - hahnchen 11:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- On source rights; The image description page lists [1] as the source. Going to the base address of that web site, at the bottom of the page we can see "Photos © Brian Aris Archive".
- The issue with the image isn't so much that it's fair use, it's how it's being used. A number of editors, myself included, routinely remove images like this of living people when they are used as the primary depiction image on the article. When an image like this is used inline in the article, to critically supplement the article, it's quite often never touched. So, if for example the image were thumbnail size in the section on her modeling career, its likely nobody would raise any objection. Alternatively, if it were used on Mary Quant or Mod (lifestyle) as crucially illustrative of Quant's work or the mod lifestyle in particular, nobody would likely raise an objection. The core issue here is the image is used for depiction purposes.
- Images that are used for depiction purposes of living people are, in practice, never fair use images. The Foundation's dictum on this allows a small window of opportunity, but in practice it is written that way to allow for unforeseen circumstances. The situation here with regards to this article is a routine situation.
- Ms. Lawson is alive and well and still active in the entertainment industry. I'm personally lenient on fair use images of living people who are quite old, and haven't been in the public eye for more than ten years. That's not the case here. She's not all that old (59), and is still very much in the public eye having appeared on television just last month. Even so, when a person is old it does not mean a free license image can not be obtained. Take for example John Wooden. This guy is 97 years old. One might think it'd be impossible to get a free license image of him. But it's not; he routinely appears at basketball games for UCLA, despite his age. I stumbled across the image that is on the article for him from a government website, which made it free license. The thing here is, with living people, it is possible to obtain free imagery. The line in the sand that the Foundation draws is whether the person is alive or not. Even after death, free license imagery might be obtained, but the Foundation allows fair use for dead people.
- So, the shakeout of this is that if you want to use Image:Twiggy promo.jpg, it's ok to use it to directly and critically supplement a segment of an article, but not purely for depicting that person as free imagery can potentially be obtained. If the image is used in this way, the rationale must contain a statement on the purpose of use of the image showing how the image can not be replaced in its function for the article and why the image must be used. Right now, the rationale fails on these points as it does not explain why this image must be used. I hope this helps, --Hammersoft (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not disputing that a free-use image could be taken of her to use as primary identification/depiction. What I have argued, is that even if we did have a free-use image of current day Twiggy, an image of her from the past would be necessary for the article. If you read the arguments put forward in the DRV and on Image talk:Twiggy promo.jpg, you'll see that the image wasn't purely for depicting that person. I thought the rationale was specific enough by highlighting it was from a specific period in her career, but if you feel that needs expanding then please do so. Note that when I originally uploaded the image into the article, the only place for it was in the infobox due to the article size. With the article in its current condition, I would be OK with the image in the second paragraph. That doesn't mean infoboxes should be treated as separate entities, it doesn't mean you can brush off fair use images without discussion using a condescending "The reason is simple". If you had properly read and dissolved the arguments beforehand, you wouldn't have believed that because arguments happened before the dictum, they had absolutely no weight. I have emailed the Brian Aris archives. - hahnchen 17:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you feel I've been condescending. No such attempt was made by me. Any further comments regarding me I think would be inappropriate. Comment on my edits, thank you.
- As for the rationale, it's still woefully inadequate and I'm still hard pressed to understand why this particular image absolutely must be in the article. Thanks for contacting Brian Aris. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, the wrong answer was "the reason is simple", instant removal of the image. Had I not been active on Wikipedia, or had I just been plain apathetic, that would have been another really useful encyclopedic image deleted. - hahnchen 18:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- To you, it's useful. To me, I see a replaceable fair use image that doesn't have much reason for being here. The article runs just fine without the image, and if the image was so important why is it that Mary Quant's work and the entire Mod (lifestyle) article have no images at all? I also do not see how this one image is important to the article in that it depicts only a short period of her career relative to all of her other works. I just don't see it as necessary. You do. But, we are after all the free encyclopedia. And really, the reason is simple. It's covered by just a handful of sentences across two policy pages. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- You could have garnered all that information regarding my position on the image, which is supported by others, from the DRV. You could have messaged me beforehand instead of just dismissing all prior arguments because it happened after the publication of a foundation statement that in this case, matters little, as the same issues were already discussed. Mod (lifestyle) could easily do with images, select fair use images would be OK, but given that it was an entire lifestyle, I'm sure that it'd be easier to source free use images given that it was absolutely everywhere. - hahnchen 18:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you disagree with the Foundation's stance on the issue. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't. I believe that fair use images should only be used if they're not replaceable, I believe that fair use images for Mods would be. - hahnchen 11:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Fair use images have to jump through a lot more hoops than just whether or not they are replaceable. So you see, it does seem you disagree with our policies. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Obviously, there has to be considerations over the images usefulness, an encyclopedic requirements. They were taken as said, but if it helps you by writing off my opinions as maverick an unmutual with policy, that's fine. For the mod article to approach anywhere near featured article status, it'd need images. - hahnchen 14:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Fair use images have to jump through a lot more hoops than just whether or not they are replaceable. So you see, it does seem you disagree with our policies. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't. I believe that fair use images should only be used if they're not replaceable, I believe that fair use images for Mods would be. - hahnchen 11:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you disagree with the Foundation's stance on the issue. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- You could have garnered all that information regarding my position on the image, which is supported by others, from the DRV. You could have messaged me beforehand instead of just dismissing all prior arguments because it happened after the publication of a foundation statement that in this case, matters little, as the same issues were already discussed. Mod (lifestyle) could easily do with images, select fair use images would be OK, but given that it was an entire lifestyle, I'm sure that it'd be easier to source free use images given that it was absolutely everywhere. - hahnchen 18:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- To you, it's useful. To me, I see a replaceable fair use image that doesn't have much reason for being here. The article runs just fine without the image, and if the image was so important why is it that Mary Quant's work and the entire Mod (lifestyle) article have no images at all? I also do not see how this one image is important to the article in that it depicts only a short period of her career relative to all of her other works. I just don't see it as necessary. You do. But, we are after all the free encyclopedia. And really, the reason is simple. It's covered by just a handful of sentences across two policy pages. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, the wrong answer was "the reason is simple", instant removal of the image. Had I not been active on Wikipedia, or had I just been plain apathetic, that would have been another really useful encyclopedic image deleted. - hahnchen 18:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not disputing that a free-use image could be taken of her to use as primary identification/depiction. What I have argued, is that even if we did have a free-use image of current day Twiggy, an image of her from the past would be necessary for the article. If you read the arguments put forward in the DRV and on Image talk:Twiggy promo.jpg, you'll see that the image wasn't purely for depicting that person. I thought the rationale was specific enough by highlighting it was from a specific period in her career, but if you feel that needs expanding then please do so. Note that when I originally uploaded the image into the article, the only place for it was in the infobox due to the article size. With the article in its current condition, I would be OK with the image in the second paragraph. That doesn't mean infoboxes should be treated as separate entities, it doesn't mean you can brush off fair use images without discussion using a condescending "The reason is simple". If you had properly read and dissolved the arguments beforehand, you wouldn't have believed that because arguments happened before the dictum, they had absolutely no weight. I have emailed the Brian Aris archives. - hahnchen 17:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oh yes, I quite enjoy writing off people's opinions if they disagree with mine <rolls eyes>. As for an article reaching featured status, fair use images are not required for an image to reach featured status. Plenty of FAs have zero fair use images. For example, Ima Hogg. I still feel the Twiggy image is replaceable. There's nothing stopping anyone from dressing up a model to imitate the look she modelled, and caption it as "an example of the fashion Twiggy helped to promote". If we can't make headway on this, I'll eventually place the image for fair use review, which is the next logical step since it's pretty obvious we aren't going to agree. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't say it needed fair use imagery, I said it needs images. When you blanket statements like "you disagree with the Foundation's stance", you need some kind of backing argument, rather than just second guessing my thoughts. I'm sorry that you fail to not appear condescending. - hahnchen 18:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, let me try a little harder at it then whilst I read up the story about how it takes two to dance. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't say it needed fair use imagery, I said it needs images. When you blanket statements like "you disagree with the Foundation's stance", you need some kind of backing argument, rather than just second guessing my thoughts. I'm sorry that you fail to not appear condescending. - hahnchen 18:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Conclusion: Image placeholders centralized discussion
Hi. I'm sending this to you because you participated in the Centralized discussion on image placeholders that ended on 23 April.
That discussion must produce a conclusion.
We originally asked "Should the addition of this box [example right] be allowed? Does the placeholder system and graphic image need to be improved to satisfy policies and guidelines for inclusion? Is it appropriate to some kinds of biographies, but not to others?" (See introduction).
Conclusions to centralized discussions are either marked as 'policy', 'guideline', 'endorsed', 'rejected', 'no consensus', or 'no change' etc. We should now decide for this discussion.
Please read and approve or disapprove the section here: Conclusion --Kleinzach (talk) 11:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Please note this message conforms to WP:CANVASSING and has not been sent to anyone has not already participated in the centralized discussion.
[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare
Your concerns have been addressed. Gary King (talk) 20:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Zoo Keeper.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Zoo Keeper.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] incite magazine request
Hey, I was wondering if I could request the Space Invaders game review in issue 4 (March 2000) of incite magazine. Thank you. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC))
- I don't have access to that issue right now. I will be able to get hold of it in summer (late June/early July), but the review is of a 2000 re-release as seen at IGN. - hahnchen 16:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Killzone 2 - Gameplay.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Killzone 2 - Gameplay.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Please be civil
Please be civil and do not curse like you did here please see WP: CIVILGears Of War 02:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Don't break header titles, it means that links in edit summaries are broken. Wikipedia isn't censored, especially it's talk pages. If you think that the use of crappy, or rubbish, instead of the word shitty is appropriate then that's your decision when you start discussions. My prose has remained civil throughout. - hahnchen 02:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ha ha ha, funny, last time I checked, saying that something some one says is BS is not exactly civil. And niether is the actual work in the contents. Wikipedia does not only have older editors but children 10 and under also edit on Wikipedia and they should not be exposed to that dude it's un called for, just please try not to curse so frekin much k?Gears Of War 02:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Forgive the intrusion, but...
- hahnchen, while you have consistently exhibited good judgment in editing and discussions, I have to agree that the use of foul language is generally not necessary; just my personal opinion. And while there is technically nothing in WP:CIVIL that prohibits the general use of it, I'm sure you can understand if others might construe cursing as uncivil.
- Gears, while I agree with your point, I'm sure you can agree that beginning a response sarcastically can most times instigate a situation. Each party has expressed their view points and there is no need to continue a discussion that may lead to hostile relations. (Guyinblack25 talk 03:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC))
- Ha ha ha, funny, last time I checked, saying that something some one says is BS is not exactly civil. And niether is the actual work in the contents. Wikipedia does not only have older editors but children 10 and under also edit on Wikipedia and they should not be exposed to that dude it's un called for, just please try not to curse so frekin much k?Gears Of War 02:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- If you take offense to the swearing, just say so. I swear a lot in every day speech, I am in Britain after all. In general I don't see how the words fuck and shit are any different to screw and crap. Eamon got a number one in the UK with a song title using the word fuck, Penn and Teller have a show dedicated to bullshit. What I don't appreciate are the meaningless generic links to Wikipedia guidelines on my talk page without any context. - hahnchen 23:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Okay thanks fr clearing it up, I did not intend to offend. Friends?Gears Of War 00:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- Look, it's cool. Just give more context to warnings in general, if you found the text offensive, then say so. If you thought the language got in the way of communication, then mention it. Just linking to guidelines does nothing. I would have been a lot more likely to alter the text had you asked and not just altered it yourself. - hahnchen 01:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- Okay thanks fr clearing it up, I did not intend to offend. Friends?Gears Of War 00:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
![[1]](http://www.twiggylawson.co.uk/twiggydownload2.jpg){kind=link}