User:Hahnchen/Archive2

RfC

I've opened an RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hahnchen. Snowspinner 22:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for inviting me to the Requests for comment page. I've made a few recommendations and invited several wikipedians over there. As you'll see from my comments, I disagree with a lot of what you've done, but mostly because it rests on such a shoddy and flimsy stake that is WP:COMIC policy. I'd love to get the policy cleaned up, define notability as it relates to webcomics etc, and THEN go about doing the purge thing. Tedzsee 23:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

RE: Life on Forbez

Regarding my closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life on Forbez, I re-counted and still see 6 votes. I assume you wanted me to count your nomination as a vote, but unless it specifically says delete, I don't count the nominator as voting delete. The reason for this is that occasionally a nominator isn't sure if it's deletable and wants opinions, is listing a previously incomplete afd, etc. If you want a nomination to be counted as a vote, please explicitly add delete to the end of it. Regards, Scimitar ^parley 14:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• It's pretty much up to the discretion of the closing admin- if it had been a difference making vote, I would have contacted you. It's still a pretty good idea to explicitly say delete.--Scimitar ^parley 16:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The College of Wooster Greeks debate reopened

Since you participated in this AFD debate, you might like to know that it has been reopened following discussion at WP:DRV. The new debate is at here. Yours, Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

My alertness must be dropping

I missed this. - brenneman^(t)(c) 01:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• By chance I had just stumbled across your posting on deletion review. I've actually left the "unique style" in right now, but I've already countered those points on the deletion review. I would probably remove it sooner or later. I took off the "Webcomic toplist" point he made straight away, they're more unreliable than alexa and totally meaningless. - Hahnchen 01:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Requiem: Avenging Angel, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

input requested

Your input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer and video games#Template: Infobox CVG colors would be appreciated. Thunderbrand 03:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Webcomics RFAr

Yeah, I've been watching that for quite some time. Unfortunately, I haven't been keeping track of the policy debate—it was stalled, and I decided to stop being frustrated to no purpose. Thus I don't think I have anything to contribute at this time; I think Sjakkalle said what I likely would've said if I were better informed, and that the defendants responded appropriately in asking why the conflict was being bumped straight to RFAr. If you see anything that needs to be said, and you'd like my support or would like me to say it for you, I'm happy to do so (if I agree, of course)—let me know. -- SCZenz 06:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

It's alright, I just wanted to make sure that you knew about it. Personally I'm just a bit shocked that it's ended up at arbitration, it's pretty farcical. - Hahnchen 16:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Now that my RfA is fully and officially completed, I want to thank you for your support. My only quesetion is, which unsavory characters were you talking about? Was it you? ;-) -- SCZenz 18:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Heh, maybe, depends on what you thought of the discussions. The atmosphere of those debates weren't the best on both sides really, espcially with sockpuppeting etc. - Hahnchen 19:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I think I'll decline to comment on that... Heh indeed. -- SCZenz 19:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

30gigs deletion

While this may be true, I closed based on the votes. If you'd like to renominate, you can; however, doing so is highly controversial. You might make a mention at the administrator's noticeboard, and see what others think. Ral315 (talk) 07:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

My failed RFA :)

Dear Hahnchen,

I would like to thank you for supporting me on my RfA. Even though it failed with a with the final tally of 55/22/6, I want to thank you anyways. I don't want to be one a admin anymore until I reach 10,000 edits now that it's over with. Thanks --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask

I have added a review from Famitsu. —Hollow Wilerding 01:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Images

If you do now commons CSD they have to be the same image. I can't decide which to keep since the colors are very different between the two versions. gren グレン 20:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Well, the ones I've tagged, I felt that the Commons version was easily superior. But if these "duplicates" don't fall under CSD, then I'll IFD them, it's just that IFD process is slower and requires more effort on my behalf. Maybe I'll just set them to watch and then group IFD them. But for example Image:Lucascranachtheelderselfportrait.jpeg which I tagged, the quality of that version is inferior to the commons Image:Lucas Cranach d. Ä. 063.jpg. All the subtleties seem to have been lost and theres other "artifacts" on the image. The commons one, part of the Yorck Project looks like a cleaned up version. - Hahnchen 20:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

SoLando's RFA

Hi Hahnchen , thank you for voting in support of my RFA; the result was (28-0-0 ). I hope that I am able to fulfil the expectations of an admin and not get all cabally in the process. If you see me mess up anywhere, have any concerns (be it for my musical taste or edits), please don't hesitate to tell me! Take care. SoLando (Talk) 10:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

csd tag for foreign language - a tamil name

Hi Hahnchen, thanks for the headsup. just speedy deleted it. --Gurubrahma 13:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

COTW: Culture of Sudan

This article is now the Collaboration of the Week! Thanks for your support. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-18 21:34

Adminship

Hi, thanks for supporting my request for adminship. If there's ever something I can help you out with please drop me a note. Happy holidays! Jacoplane 16:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for supporting me in my request for admin privileges. Your kind words made good reading in a difficult time. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Double redirects

I knew when I moved the page that it would create double redirects, its just that I didn't have the time at the moment to change them, which I would have done later today. Thanks for doing them anyway. Thunderbrand 18:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Brian Chase page move

I'd moved the page from Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer) to Brian Chase (hoaxer). User:Sam Sloan did a cut-and-paste move, reverting me. I'll try to undo to get the page history under the right page title. --King of All the Franks 08:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting the thing out, yeah I knew it was a cut-and-paste. For people directed here by the edit summary at Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer), see User talk:Sam Sloan. - Hahnchen 17:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Beatles image

I have refused the speedy delete of Image:MeettheBeatlesreissuecover.jpg as it does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. Physchim62 (talk) 18:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure what is the problem with this image being deleted? Thanks Arniep 18:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The image, even the 750x750 version is not an unreasonable fair use image. On the front page, we have a picture of a Starcraft CD cover, at a resolution of over 400x400. This vinyl cover at 750x750 is by no means too high res to qualify under fair use. The version you have replaced links to, in my eyes, is a poor quality photo. Too low res, and misses out many subtleties of the album cover. In my eyes, it should be Image:Meet the Beatles.jpg which is deleted, not this one. I may take them both to ifd to see what becomes of them. - Hahnchen 19:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The resolution is not really an issue to me. The disputed image is a user scan, whereas the image I replaced it with is a cleaner official image. Arniep 19:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the lower left sides of the top three faces on Image:MeettheBeatlesreissuecover.jpg you can see pixelized steps, the other image is much cleaner. Yes it is darker, but I could lighten it up if that is an issue for you. Regards Arniep 19:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not a cleaner image, that's the point. It misses a lot of the detail, and some of it is blurry. There's absolutely nothing wrong with user scans to be used as fair use. I think that Image:MeettheBeatlesreissuecover.jpg is a genuinely better image, especially the 750x750 version, which I believe to be of sufficiently low resolution and has less of the pixellation that you mention. Even if you lightened it up, you wouldn't see the lost detail and unblur the edges. Why are you so keen to see Image:Meet the Beatles.jpg kept and the other one deleted? - Hahnchen 19:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi I never said that user scans couldn't be fair use. The Image:Meet the Beatles.jpg is of better quality in my opinion (although it is currently darker, which is what you may be interpreting as blurring) . The 750 px image was too large, it should not be significantly bigger than is necessary so you can see it on the article page. Arniep 21:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, looking at it again it does appear to be blurred. However I am still not satisfied with the quality of Image:MeettheBeatlesreissuecover.jpg so I will create a new version from this image, and replace one of the images. Cheers Arniep 21:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Hi Hahnchen/Archive2, thanks for participating in my RfA discussion. Unfortunately, my fellow Wikipedians have decided at this time that I am not suitable to take on this additional responsibility, as the RfA failed with a result of 66/27/5 (71.0% support). If you voted in support of my request, thank you! If you decided to oppose me at this time, then I hope that if I do choose to reapply in the future, the effort I will make in the meantime to improve and expand my contributions to Wikipedia may persuade you to reconsider your position. All the best, Proto t c 10:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Mesh Computers

Hi there, over at WP:DRV you said you were surprised that one could have lived in the UK for a decade without seeing one of their boxen. So where are they sold? I'm really curious! (Note that I don't read computer comics PC magazines, 'cause they are boring.) Pilatus 01:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure where they're sold, I'm not sure whether they're sold at shops like Dixons or PC world or purchased direct, because I build my PC from parts and scoff at prebuilds like Mesh because I'm boring. However, I've seen many reviews of their products in PC magazines, and I remember that the college that I used to attend bought an absolute shedload of Mesh PCs. I also knew of a friend who rated their PCs highly, so they do get around. - Hahnchen 08:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

You see, I have been buying much computer gear on eBay and have cases and things with all stripes of brand label - Simply, Compaq, Gateway, Time... but Mesh is curiously missing from the collection. Hey, this keyboard here says "Tiny", and the entry on the Granville Technology Group is still missing! How come? The collapse of that outfit last summer created enough news coverage. Pilatus 17:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's just that Computer manufacturers aren't exactly the most exciting thing to write about. But Tiny computers are a heck of a lot more notable than whatever blogcasting webcomic fad is around, and yet inevitably fails to delete. There is a micro stub on Time UK which was one of the Granville brands. - Hahnchen 18:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:UKCOTW

Just to let you know the current UK Collaboration of the Fortnight is WP:UK Wikipedians' notice board/UKCOTW/current, an article you voted for!. Every fortnight a different UK-related topic, stub or non-existent article is picked. Please read the nomination text and improve the article any way you can.

Ralph Macchio (actor) move

"I am incredulous that this move was not made during the first request."

Setting up a proper move request at the talk page and voting on the move yourself will help. LuiKhuntek 21:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know that step 2 = set up talk page. However, I thought that this move was so blindingly obvious, it isn't needed. - Hahnchen 21:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Further comment - Ralph Macchio has always been about the actor, until mid december, when it was changed into a disambig with 2 links. I had reverted this, and created an inline disambig link on the top of the page, like say Kotor. Do you think Kotor would be better as a disambig? With one link to the game and one link to the town? If a disambig page has two links to relatively short articles, it's absolutely useless, everyone needs an extra click, whereas an inline one, less than half would. It's a small page, it's not going to strain any modem. Right now, Ralph Macchio is a redirect link, because I changed it pending the so I thought obvious page move, if people genuinely think that making it a redirect is going to be detrimental to wikipedia then it should be reverted. And the talk page that the admin set up on my behalf, which I felt unnecessary, the only oppose vote didn't even take into account that Ralph Macchio was already a redirect, he just thought that the names should have (disambig brackets) behind them, because unecessary redundancy is good?! - Hahnchen 21:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all of your arguments. My point was that since this is listed at the WP:RM page, maybe a vote section at the article talk page would help garner more support. LuiKhuntek 08:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for taking the time to vote in my RfA, which passed with a final vote of 54/2/1 despite my obvious inadequacy for the job. I'll do my level best to use the mop and bucket — or, as I said in my RfA, plunger — responsibly. Of course, in the best tradition of politicans everywhere, I've already broken a campaign promise (I blocked a vandal last night despite having said "I don't anticipate using the blocking tool very often"). Nevertheless, I'll try not to let the unbridled power corrupt me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you very much for your support during my recent Admin election, I appreciate the trust that you have put in me. Please contact me if you have any questions, comments or concerns regarding my work as an admin.

Kind Regards, Elf-friend 08:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Multiple nominations...

Are always a headache. They tend to make people give knee-jerk responses as opposed to thoughtful ones. Compounded by the unfortunate coincidence of me nominating another webcomic threee down from where you nominated yours... this could turn into something over-passionate, you do know? - brenneman^{T}{L} 01:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Link to Squidward

Ok, so how about self-references on Vandalism, Administrator, Steward, Mediation and probably a few others I can't think of right now? Actually I was on IRC during yesterday attack and many people were completely clueless as of what's that "Squidward" everyone's shouting about? Misza13 ^(Talk) 18:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, whereas things like Vandalism and Administrator are very general things which a newbie may go looking for, a Vandalism in progress report for Squidward isn't exactly what the general audience of Wikipedia is looking for. I'm on IRC right now, and just asked for a show of opinions, everyone has responded on the #wikipedia channel felt that a link to a Vandalism in Progress report should not be crosslinked from the mainspace. - Hahnchen 19:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Falling man image

I have added a fair use rationale. In future, if you upload more images, could you please add a rationale? Thanks! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for adding the rationale. I understand it is needed, I felt that the "Fair use in ..." template summed up the main points. I based the image description on others from Category:Memorable photographs, quite a few prominent photographs there don't have rationale either like Image:Nguyen.jpg. Maybe they should be looked over. - Hahnchen 13:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

My RFA withdrawal :(

Hello Hahnchen, it is my apologies to bring you that I've withdrawn my RFA. Due to the lack of experience, I would go under admin coaching first before trying again later. I would thank you for your vote in this RFA whether you voted support, oppose or neutral for me. I appreciate your comments (if you do have) you made and I hope to see you here in future. --Terence Ong 05:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)