User:Hahnchen/Archive4

Speedy Keep stuff

Hanchen, consider reading the discussion about it above where you left your message, and the rationale for the change. If you disagree, that's great, because I want to hear from you, and there weren't many people who disagreed period, especially to the point of opposing the change. Either way, it's never a good idea to arbitrarily change guidelines without discussion on its talk page, so I look forward to working it out with you. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

How many times can you nominate an article for deletion?

It seems like a waste of time that Authorship of A Course in Miracles has been nominated twice for deletion. Don't you agree? -- Andrew Parodi 02:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it is, but Vampirism Revolution was nominated twice for deletion too. - Hahnchen 23:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

AfD de_chateau

Just wanted to let you know that one of our CS maps is up for deletion. I'm not sure why they're picking on this one, but here's the link Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/De_chateau David Bergan 16:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

AfD on A Course in Miracles (book)

The original nomination was made in bad faith. The second nomination was also made in bad faith. I created the article, and except for the small section on litigation that remains, itself uncited, have been persuaded by the other editors in the AfD to agree with them and delete the article. If you are considering closing this AfD, please go right ahead. The most controversial part of the article itself was simply caused by insufficient research. It had reached the point where it began to demonstrate that another particular article was advertisment for a particular publishing group. Since enough research in that area has not yet been performed, the article simply caused emotions/problems/warring, etc. etc., and I will re-introduce the same material at a later date, after more sufficient research into the topic matter has been performed. By that time, the title of the article will certainly be something different than it is now. When originally creating this article, I was yet unaware of where the research would lead. Hope this answers your question about the AfD, if not, I will watch your page here for replies. Thanks. Ste4k 17:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The only reason I came to that page was because I had fixed some redirects earlier. I've not looked into that article at all, nor am I well versed in its subject. I removed the AFD because on clicking on it, it said that it was closed not long ago, so I thought the admin forgot to remove the tag. I only spotted the nomination on the bottom after my edit, typically AFDs are not placed on the same page as previous ones so I didn't expect it. Give it a few days and I'm sure an admin will close the AFD as a no consensus. Why isn't a merge with A Course in Miracles a valid option? - Hahnchen 17:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The current article A Course in Miracles is inappropriately named. There are at least three, maybe more (haven't finished researching other leads), books that are all named with the same title. This article, A Course in Miracles (book), in particular was started as research into that title. After getting about 1/3rd of the way through the research of the court case, it was discovered that there were several court cases about several books with that title. One court case (the one being referenced) acted as a precedent to end all of them and put the material into the public domain. The other article is only about one specific book under that title, and specifically it is written by the publisher that brought suit against all the others. Depending on whom a reader might be, the other article could be viewed as extreme POV prejudice attempting to re-establish what has already been ruled null and void by the Federal courts. If the other two books, as well as the other publishers (including others I haven't found yet) were mentioned as well as their court cases cited, etc., then it would a different story. As it stands now, however, the current article, A Course in Miracles, is a discussion of doctrine and specifically doctrine upheld by one particular publishing group. To merge such an article would simply be asking for edit wars, etc. It would be better, imho, to disambiguate, possibly even creating a disambiguation page for books under this name so that all of them could be mentioned appropriately without any controversy. Either way, the A Course in Miracles (book) would only add controversy and abmiguity to the other article. Ste4k 11:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a note... the editor of the other article mentions awareness of the other two books. Ste4k 14:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Tiny Tim on YTMND

May I ask your reason for repeatedly removing the YTMND reference in the "Popular Culture" section of Tiny Tim? Rob T Firefly 00:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

YTMND fads are neither newsworthy nor encyclopedic. They lack any third party sources, something that Wikipedia pretty much relies on, and are only of interest to those on the YTMND forums. You'll see that the list of YTMND fads was deleted, on the grounds of being unnotable, unencyclopedic and lacking in sources. For those same reasons, I remove references to YTMND from unrelated articles. For example, some user thought it useful to have a link to a YTMND on the pi article, yes? no. - Hahnchen 01:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your statement that the fads are "only of interest to those on the YTMND forums," as in acuality the YTMND forum users and YTMND site creators don't have nearly as much crossover between the groups as one might expect. There are also often third-party references to the most notable fads in the news media's various stories about YTMND. Still, the rest of your point is well taken. Thanks for answering! Rob T Firefly 01:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Another AfD on the CS Maps

Thanks for your input on the last one, this is getting sickening, but the vote is against us right now. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Counter-Strike_maps David Bergan 21:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice AfD's

I just wanted to comment...your nominations showed a lot of intelligence, and were hilarious. Regards, Alphachimp ^talk 01:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, it makes a change from people moaning and flaming about my nominations. See my Userpage history for an example of the typical reaction. - Hahnchen 01:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For your humorous AfD nominations. Whispering 01:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, it makes a change from people moaning and flaming about my nominations. See my Userpage history for an example of the typical reaction. - Hahnchen 01:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Random anonymous Barnstar

		Comics barnstar
		Efforts in cleaning up the Webcomics section! Keep up the good work! --01:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Mr anonymous IP guy. Although being that this is your only contribution, I'm not really sure if it counts as a proper barnstar. Still, all the best. - Hahnchen 01:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll give this cred by seconding the barnstar, then! - brenneman ^{L} 05:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

myg0t

Hi, I noticed you had some history reguarding the myg0t article. Well, the article is up for DrV, and I ask that you post your thoughts on whether or not it should be undeleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#myg0t - thanks, cacophony 23:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It occurs to me that the current disucussion is occuring in a vaccuum. If there were a well-written and well-sourced article in user space we might be have a different outcome. *nudge*
brenneman ^{L} 04:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible for a well-sourced article about myg0t, that's the problem and they're barely notable anyway. It's not really something I care too much about. I think Cacophony had something in his user space at one point, but I'm not sure. - Hahnchen 13:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

AfD on Individual Counter-Strike maps

Just wanted to inform you of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Individual_Counter-Strike_maps (July 17, 2006). I'm alerting everyone who had more than 2 edits in one of the previous AfDs. Kind regards, David Bergan 19:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Reference for Bud Freeman

Hello. I put a temporary "unsourced" tag on (mostly) your article on Bud Freeman -- nothing personal, just those rules, you know. Could you please just replace the tag with a one-liner citing which book or reference you worked with to generate the initial article? Thanks. -- 62.147.113.15 12:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It's been a while since I wrote that article, so I'm not too sure. But the Allmusic guide was definitely a source. I only used online sources for that article, so some of the websites may not be that authoritative but I used them backed up with other sources. I used the Britannica entry for Bud Freeman as well, although I don't have membership to Britannica, using Google Web Accelerator can sometimes get you in. But the Bud Freeman article was really just a stop gap measure to plug a hole in WP:MEA, I hope that others could expand upon it. His autobiography would definitely be a good starting point for a proper article. - Hahnchen 13:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I replaced the tag with ==Sources==

• Bud Freeman mini-biography by Scott Yanow at All Music Guide
• Bud Freeman article at Encyclopædia Britannica online

which should be good enough for now. -- 62.147.113.15 16:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

AFD

After I saw your comments at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golden Throne (webcomic), Insert Funn13 Here (which I had seen) and Killer Robots from Space (which I hadn't) are AFD'd now. I tagged Kristy Versus the Zombie Army for notability, no sign of much on google. Cheers ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Blanking Talk:Hours (Bowie album)

Why? [1]. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 00:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a talk page of a redirect. Talk:'hours...' is already tagged. You can delete Talk:Hours (Bowie album) if you like. You seemed to have confused what was going on, as Xoloz fulfilled a db-move at 'hours...' without moving the specified page to the newly created gap. I've sorted it out now. - Hahnchen 00:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. Guess I jumped in mid-move. Sorry. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 00:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Better Days AfD

I felt bored so I went and nominated it for deletion. Just wanted to let you know.Thunderbrand 18:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Eiffel quick poll

Thank you for opining in the quick poll I set up about typography in the Eiffel article. However, if you could clarify your comment by "voting" for only one of "use blue/bold/itals everywhere" vs. "use blue/bold/itals only in code boxes", I believe that would assist in finding a consensus on the matter. Obviously, you can see my own opinion, but reaching agreement is much more important to me than is the specific result. LotLE×talk 03:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

For me, it was 2 choices, one for colour, and one for none. I went for "with colour". There are 2 sections for "with colour", and one for "without" so it seemed to be splitting up the colour voters. I really don't mind which one is chosen in the end, but I really don't see the problem with having colour in the text, especially in the code boxes where it isn't as necessarily jarring. - Hahnchen 03:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The distinction I was trying to express was one that several editors had described in prior discussion: Use the blue and so on in code blocks, but use the simple <code> style (WP style convention) within inline text. E.g. the difference between x:=1—or colorized x:=1—and:

x:=1

x:=1

Is that more clear? How can I phrase the quick poll better to make the distinct options more obvious. Theoretically "color inline, but not in blocks" would be an option, but no one has expressed any interest in that (nor do I imagine anyone will), so I omitted it).

Oh also: WP works by consensus, not by some majority vote (or plurality). Obviously, "color everywhere" implies "color in code blocks"; this isn't an exercise in legalistic vote counting. I'm just trying to get a sense whether you would prefer color inline or not.LotLE×talk 06:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Please mind WP:NPA, even when reverting vandals. Any further attacks on any user will result in a block. Naconkantari 23:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a single use vandal account to impersonate another user. I was pretty sure whoever it was aimed at probably isn't going to be seeing any more of Wikipedia under that user name. - Hahnchen 23:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

However, this editor was not a vandal, but only made a good-faith reversion based on your previous edit summary. Naconkantari 23:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

And you'll see that whilst fucksake is not entirely civil, it's an exclamation, not an attack. - Hahnchen 23:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Muertitos

HI, are you saying the bar is too high for web comics or not high enough? Cheers,  :) Dlohcierekim 01:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The bar for webcomics needs to be set a lot higher. It's one guideline at WP:WEB, yet webcomics ride through it a lot easier. I made a similar comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loserz (second nomination). - Hahnchen 01:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipe-tan

Hahnchen, I am really bothered that a professional publishing house would use this image without so much as a "by your leave". Would it be possible for you to scan the article and any accompanying acknowledgments and send me a copy. I'd like to see what, if anything, they say about it to acknowledge Kasuga and Wikipedia. An email address for me is on my user page. Dragons flight 18:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The article was not about Wikipedia. Looking through the article, no mention of Wikipedia, Wikipe-tan or Kusaga is made. Games TM run a webforum here, which you can post feedback on, and you can contact them at gamestm@imagine-publishing.co.uk - Hahnchen 23:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you, Hahnchen, for voting on my RFA, which passed 95 to 1. Now that I have the mop, I hope I can live up to the standard, and be a good administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. —this is messedrocker (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion: Misadventures, etc.

I phrased it oddly, but I was under th e impression that th e webcomics projects were striving for completion. It's not a very good article, and needs categorisation and a stub, but it may be valid Wikipedia content. Would rather it went through the AfD process. Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI for Image:Wikipe-tan GamesTM.jpg

I have modified the tag, it should have been a free license. :) --Cat out 15:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

CfD: Category:Level Editors

Hi Hahnchen,

...to category:Level editors, not the stupid ridiculously long examples as per above. Anyone familiar with computer games knows that a level editor isn't a person.

I guess these comments are directed primarily toward myself; my apologies if you feel I've been wasting everyone's time. Are you aware, however, that the second begs the question I raised; that, according to WP:NCCAT#General naming conventions, editors should "[c]hoose category names that are able to stand alone..."...? (Plus, even if this weren't a possible misunderstanding, the name doesn't suggest what sort of "levels" are involved). I realiz/se this category is but one of many on Wikipedia – I'm not on a crusade! – but since this category has appeared at CfD, now is as good a time as any to sort it out. Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 03:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Final Fantasy IV

We have a reference to Nintendo Power issue 30 already. Sir Crazyswordsman 00:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

When you say Famitsu do you mean from then or from now? Because honestly I think Nintendo Power is probably better for then, as NP is better known throughout the English speaking community than Famitsu, but if you want Famitsu I'll try to find its review for you. Sir Crazyswordsman 01:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I found the GamePro score. It's better because it's an English magazine. Sir Crazyswordsman 03:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This is just a general comment on critical commentary in CVG articles, but GamePro isn't "better" just because it's in english. It's a game originating from Japan, so it would have been better for a translation of a Famitsu review. Critical Reaction sections in CVG articles are almost always lacking, something I mentioned back at WP:CVG, and lead to the establishment of the Magazine Project. Famitsu has a lot more editorial power and influence than GamePro does, being that in the Japanese gaming market, it is THE magazine. But it's good that you now have at least one source from the game's release. - Hahnchen 03:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

List of maps in Battlefield 2

Heya. I notice that you removed the prod notice on the above article this morning, with the suggestion that "I suggest getting rid of the individual maps first". I'd rather give the article a chance before I take this to AfD - of course - so I was just wondering if you could explain exactly what you meant by this comment. I don't really know what you meant. Thanks! :) Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 21:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• I meant, instead of prodding the list. Go for Dalian Plant, Gulf of Oman (Battlefield 2 map) etc. - Hahnchen 21:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Admin?

Are you an admin? If not, why are you allowed to put warnings on talk pages from people like Stephen Bowers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? I'm somewhat new to this place, and I'd like to know how it works... --Patstuart 01:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

No, anyone can do it. Especially if it's blatantly obvious. You can check out WP:VANDAL for a rundown of what tags you can put on talk pages. If I were an admin, I'd have just perm-banned the guy without posting it on WP:AIV. - Hahnchen 01:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Another note - instead of editing my talk page and then inserting your own title to the bottom, it is easier just to click the "+" which is next to the "edit this page" tab and to go from there. - Hahnchen 01:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, that's interesting, because there's been so many times when someone needed a warning, but the machinery seems to be a bit slow here, at times. Thanks --Patstuart

Requesting administrator assistance on IRC

I am taking these accusations of lack of process for using IRC quite seriously, so thank you for your support on the topic. To legitimize the user of IRC, I've proposed a procedure for when sysops use IRC to listen to Move Requests, which for now I've put on the village pump (policy) page. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Requesting_administrator_assistance_on_IRC. Your feedback, even if you completely disagree with the additional process, is welcome. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 00:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This is never going to fly. Ever. You don't have to legitimise the use of IRC, because if you did, it would just get bogged down in the needless bureaucracy that flies around everywhere. IRC is and always will be an informal place where you go to get things done. Having a guideline would just be ignored, and having some set procedure would go against the whole point people go to the IRC channel in the first place. Stop worrying about your RFA, going by vote counts, it's going to succeed, I only think that your post on the Village Pump would be detriment to that. - Hahnchen 01:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

OK thanks the assurance :) —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 07:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Ford AFD

I think it is useful to have a record of bad-faith AFDs. I don't consider it "recognition" in the sense that the old special pages for notorious vandals might have been considered recognition. If you feel strongly otherwise, I suppose you could AFD the AFD discussion page (that makes my head hurt just to type that). :) NawlinWiki 15:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Sven Co-op

Sven Co-op might be notable but the article as it stands does not assert any notability - it has zero in the way of sources. Saying "it's notable" in an edit summary does not fulfil that criteria. --Charlesknight 09:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Check my contribs, I've removed quite a few prods and commented on a few AFDs on games mods. Normally, I comment "give me time to find some sources" in the edit summary, something which I forgot to do for Sven Coop. - Hahnchen 13:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi - you might want to check this. --Charlesknight 22:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Eh

So you still doing that webcomic thing on AfD? Haven't seen you for awhile. Whispering^(talk/c) 01:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I do it off and on. Can't really be bothered to put in the time for it right now, but if you do here's a few:

• DoomDaze
• Lowroad75
• Tween (webcomic)
• Later That Day...
• Reprographics (comic)
• Primer Chronicles
• Fortuna Saga
• Rich Gentlemen Hide
• Dragon Ball New Age

If you want to take webcomics on, in general I go for the ones linked to from the Webcomic advertising board. Thus, I'd prioritise DoomDaze over Fishtanked. Pretty much everything hosted on Comic Genesis, SmackJeeves, DrunkDuck (free webcomic hosts) are junk, but you need to be wary of some which might not be. The WCCA awards are a crock, it's just an online poll, unless a comic has won multiple awards on the WCCAs it doesn't mean anything. So if anyone claims that Reprographics is notable because it was nominated for a WCCA, it isn't. - Hahnchen 01:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Note that I've not tried {{db-web}} much yet, I've done it a few times on tiny webcomic stubs, but nothing substantial. I'm not sure how that'll play out. - Hahnchen 01:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You may also be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Webspamming_campaign_-_King_Tractor_Press.2FShawn_Granger - Hahnchen 01:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

poll for style on Talk:Eiffel (programming language)

hi, could you pls clarify your opinion on the quick poll for style on Talk:Eiffel (programming language)? i separated code block style and inline code style, and i am not sure if i interpreted/counted your opinion correctly. --ThurnerRupert 04:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Tate Modern

I liked your new picture on the Tate Modern page. Do you have pictures of any other old Turbine Hall exhibits? - The Blackfriar 15:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Nah, I never took it. I just found it on Wikipedia and thought it'd be a nice place to put it. And it'd be great to have more turbine hall exhibits there, the Anish Kapoor one was pretty impressive. - Hahnchen 15:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)