User:Hahnchen/Archive10

SeaCity Museum
Hi there - sorry to be cheeky, but I see you have been working up an expanded article in your sandbox. When do you expect/hope to have this finished? Best wishes. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Give me two weeks. I've been too busy over May to do any real work on it.  I need to finish off the funding section, detailing the opposition and then eventual backdown of the art sale.  Maybe a paragraph on the construction, and then another section on the exhibits/collection. - hahnch e n 12:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, still been busy. I'll definitely be able to finish it in July, due to holiday, didn't manage to do any work this weekend though (which is what I'd intended on doing). - hahnch e n 21:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

CaseyPenk (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

God of War: Chains of Olympus FAC
Response to your opposition. --JDC808 (talk) 23:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

resource request
Hi Hahnchen,

I've uploaded an article that you requested at the resource exchange. You can find a link to the article at that page. Best, GabrielF (talk) 17:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 24
Hi. When you recently edited Southampton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Millbrook railway station (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Malice (video game mod)


The article Malice (video game mod) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
 * A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Wikipedia's general notability guideline.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Neelix (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Malice
Hi Hahn,

I noticed that you deprodded Malice (video game mod), stating that the mod was "reviewed in multiple reliable offline sources" cited at the "Malice homepage at archive.org". I have been unsuccessful in locating this homepage. Would you be willing to provide me with a link to that page?

Neelix (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The main homepage is in the external links section. If you go through the News archives at  you'll find references to the PC Zone and PC Gamer reviews.  My personal magazines library does not stretch back that far which is why the reference is not made explicit in the article. - hahnch e n 15:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Hahn,


 * I don't see the references you mention on the link you provide above, and the "News" link on that page doesn't seem to provide me with the references either. Do you have a direct link to the references?


 * Neelix (talk) 13:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Click through to the news archives at the bottom. Keep going. - hahnch e n 13:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for SeaCity Museum
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on a very interesting and comprehensive article. --  Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. - hahnch e n 11:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

XXXpx
I used to upload "bigger" images but at some point, someone asked me to reduce them bla bla bla. 220px is ok. But one of my life purposes is to please everyone, so I promise you I will stop uploading 220px. 300px~350px sounds cooler. --Hydao (talk) 13:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Magazine request
I noticed you were listed as the contact for Issue 204 of EDGE. This issue contains a nice interview with Tim Schafer, and I was wondering if you could provide me with a copy of it. Electroguv (talk) 11:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Drop me an email, and I'll send you a copy next week when I get access to it. Tim Schafer's been in the press so much recently though, that it's unlikely you'll find anything there that you won't online.  Still, there might be a few juicy quotes. - hahnch e n 12:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am also interested in another Schafer interview from GamesTM's 100th issue. Could you provide a copy? Electroguv (talk) 09:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Can do, but you'll probably have to wait a few weeks for that. - hahnch e n 11:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have just learned that Issue 62 of Retro Gamer contains an article about the making of Full Throttle. This stuff is very important for me, so I would be very grateful if you could provide a copy as soon as possible. Thanks in advance, Electroguv (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Check your email. - hahnch e n 18:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Awards
I noted you posted on the talk page of an IP about his adding of Hyper Awards (I'd just today pinged him about citations). I actually posed a question about this - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games - and maybe you could record your thoughts there for posterity (and maybe link any past discussion or guideline that might clarify our practice to me). Thanks, bridies (talk) 15:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation newsletter
Hey. I'm dropping you a note because you've been using the Page Curation suite recently - this is just to let you know that we've deployed the final version :). There's some help documentation Page Curation/Introductionhere that shows off all the features, just in case there are things you're not familiar with. If you find any bugs or have requests for new features, let us know here. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SeaCity Museum
The article SeaCity Museum you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:SeaCity Museum for comments about the article. Well done! Kürbis (✔) 18:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

GibraltarPediA Options followup
You participated earlier in Wikipedia talk:Did you know/GibraltarPediA Options, in which a proposed moratorium on Gibraltar-related DYKs was rejected and a set of options was agreed. There is currently a suggestion from editors who did not participate in that discussion that a moratorium should be imposed, overturning the earlier agreement. If you have any views on this, please feel free to comment at Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Prioryman (talk) 21:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Sinistar and MobyGames
MobyGames is reliable enough to use it as a citation for release dates? i can't find such information in any other website... — Ṟ  Ṉ™  02:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a tertiary source, like GameFaqs is. I generally don't think tertiary sources are that great, but whatever source you used for your orginal "31 August" date must have been just as bad.  The best source for release dates is actually primary sources, such as press releases - the 15 September date is correct.  Try looking for press releases regarding the European release. - hahnch e n 03:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, actually it was GameSpot the one reporting that date :S. I found more press releases i will add to the article. Do you have any comments on the FAC? I'd like to have as much feedback as possible :) — Ṟ  Ṉ™  03:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Gamespot and Gamefaqs uses the same user submitted database. I would drop the German release date, and just have the 15 September date as worldwide. - hahnch e n 13:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. — Ṟ  Ṉ™  02:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

XIII
Hello,

do you think that XIII is ready for its next step? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 21:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

games TM sandbox features
Hi! Coming from ref library, could you please take a look at games TM issues #73 and #81, specifically the "Sandbox games feature"? Are they about specific game examples, or do they cover the genre itself -- something that can be used for generic genre information. Google is useless on such specifics. Thanks. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to my collection right now, won't do until early December. I believe the articles cover the genre, so it will mention certain games, but won't be focused on one. - hahnch e n 20:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Great news! I've scoured the web for the scans, but I've only found first 50 issues and a few later individual ones, but not the ones I want. Please ping me when you get access, thanks a bunch. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey, me again. Do you happen to have access to your collection at this time? — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've been way to busy with work that I've had no time for Wikipedia. I won't be able to get hold of these until the new year, if the earth hasn't ended by then. - hahnch e n 00:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for sending the scans, appreciated! — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Notification
As you were one of a number of editors who participated in Wikipedia talk:Did you know/GibraltarPediA Options last September, I thought I would notify you that I have suggested a change to the wording of the restrictions to clarify what is being restricted. Please see WT:DYK for the details. Prioryman (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

A few months ago, you participated in a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Did you know about Gibraltar-related DYKs on the Main Page. I am proposing that the temporary restrictions on such DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012, should be lifted and have set out a case for doing so at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Gibraltar-related DYKs. If you have a view on this, please comment at that page. Prioryman (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

List of video games notable for negative reception
Why not nominating it for deletion yourself? --George Ho (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly inactive right now, if others agree, they can do it. - hahnch e n 20:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Trine 2
Hi Hahnchen,

Great job getting the Trine 2 screenshots released under a free license :) Keep up the good work!

Cheers, Jean-Fred (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

God of War FAC
Notifying you that God of War (video game) is up for FAC again. -- JDC808  ♫  20:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ping. -- JDC808  ♫  17:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Mass Effect 2
Hello Hahnchen, how are you? I've put up Mass Effect 2 for a 2nd FAC, but it has seen little activity since then. Seeing that you are experienced in reviewing video game articles, would you mind to take a look at it, and put up your thoughts? Thank you. --Niwi3 (talk) 09:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've replied to your comments. Thank you very much for your time and interest. --Niwi3 (talk) 10:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Harry Kizirian
Thank you for your comments. I ran into three different sources saying that he's one of the most decorated in WW2. The sources seems all reliable including one for the Providence Journal. Im always open for an ALT1. Ill comment more soon...im on a mobile now. Proudbolsahye (talk) 02:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't really mind the hook, but it's fluffy in that it reads like WP:WEASEL. But if you have an alt about how he killed 12 enemy combatants while unable to walk - more people are going to click through, I'm sure of it.  Instead of the reader thinking, "some people consider him most decorated..." they think, "this guy's a hero". - hahnch e n 10:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hanchen that sounds fine to me. An ALT wouldn't hurt. Would you be willing to provide an ALT? Proudbolsahye (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Input request
Hello Hahnchen,

I am requesting input from all participants in the discussion from the recent Signpost article on sexism in Wikipedia for a proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/National teams. Thank you in advance for any contributions to the discussion. Dkreisst (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Lucian Freud - Portrait of Kitty.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Lucian Freud - Portrait of Kitty.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

RFC on TFA images
Dear Hahnchen, you may be interested in a discussion that I've started at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article. All views welcome. BencherliteTalk 16:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
I don't know if you've commented if you don't let me know. — AARON  • TALK   18:33, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Diamond Trust of London
I finished the GA review for Diamond Trust of London, which is here; only a few small issues appear to need to be addressed. Thank you. --Niwi3 (talk) 09:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I see that this wasn't promoted at FAC. When or if you nominate again, let me know, I'll reaffirm my support. -- JDC808  ♫  06:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Diamond Trust of London
 Spinning Spark  01:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to take a short survey about communication and efficiency of WikiProjects for my research
Hi Hahnchen, I'm working on a project to study the running of WikiProject and possible performance measures for it. I learn from WikiProject Video games talk page that you are an active member of the project. I would like to invite you to take a short survey for my study. If you are available to take our survey, could you please reply an email to me? I'm new to Wikipedia, I can't send too many emails to other editors due to anti-spam measure. Thank you very much for your time. Xiangju (talk) 17:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've pinged you an email. Have you tried contacting the Research Committee?  They might be able to help too. - hahnch e n 18:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Humble Bundle change
I don't think I agree with your removal of "OS X" on the Humble Bundle pages. "Mac" refers to the hardware, whereas "Mac OS X" refers to the operating system. My understanding is that nowadays Macs run Intel chips and can run Windows, so to write something specifically to run on a Mac is to make it compatible with its operating system. Morfusmax (talk) 16:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't replace all terms, specifically "MacOS X" which is incorrect on all fronts. The correct term is just OS X, I considered just using the term "OS X", but thought that readers might not know that it referred to Mac.  Informally, OS X is Mac, which is why its used on http://humblebundle.com.  I don't mind if you edit the article for consistency, I just did a quick find and replace. - hahnch e n 20:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Your dear friend Alex Kierkegaard
Hi hahnchen, I think I found a compromise solution that would satisfy all parties. Please let me know what you think. I've posted my thoughts in a new subsection on the original thread on the talk page. -Thibbs (talk) 13:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * In the interest of moving this forward in a positive direction I'm asking you to be open to compromise. Rather than adopting a winner-take-all battleground mentality, I urge you to consider my suggestions as steps in the "right" direction even if you don't consider them perfect. After all, my attempted concessions or efforts to appease you don't come from any belief in the weakness of my position. I'm trying to move beyond this argument and to come up with pragmatic solutions even if a perfect solution is not possible.
 * I've suggested (linked above) that we replace the debated Kierkegaard ref at "art game" with the mutually recognized RS article by Parker which more closely covers it. Your objection to this now appears to be a matter of editorial discretion alone - i.e. you seem to be saying that the redundancy of the line requires its removal. What I'm suggesting to you is that perhaps in the interest of dropping the stick and moving forward, you should accept this minor stylistic "problem" as a compromise because the source you have so strenuously objected to is no longer used to bolster it. Is a compromise possible on this issue for you or are the "problems" really too fundamental for you to live with?
 * At the "art game" article, I'd also like to suggest a compromise because it is apparent that you feel exceptionally strongly about Kierkegaard's use as a reference here. I'm not interested in debating that with you here at your talk page and I accept that we have quite different views on his suitability for citation. The compromise I'd propose is that for now we shift the 2 items under "Criticism of the term 'art game'" where Kierkegaard is the only source into talk pending the addition of corroboratory sources, but that we leave in place the Kierkegaard citations for the 3 items where his arguments are corroborated by other critics. Again this represents an obvious compromise. You think Kierkegaard is unfit as a source, but in agreeing to this compromise the article will only contain claims that are referenced by others in addition to Kierkegaard. So your concern regarding fringe theories should be eliminated. I'm hoping this allows us to move forward constructively. The stick can be dropped and I'm hoping you can feel the flush of achievement that you've moved the article in the "right" direction. Is such a compromise possible in this case?
 * I honestly respect your work here and I have no interest in prolonging or expanding this matter. I hope you feel the same. We are speaking about an edge case and we happen to fall on different sides of the spectrum regarding tolerance for source quality. The source is obviously far from stellar but the only thing we disagree on is whether it just falls on the usable side or whether it just misses the mark. I think compromise is the best solution if you're willing to accept anything less than total victory. Is compromise something you could live with here? -Thibbs (talk) 11:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with Parker being used as a source on the Video games as an art form article.
 * I'm not OK with Kierkegaard as being used as a source on the art game article. Why give that source the same kind of promotion as actually reliable sources, such as Tim Rogers for Kotaku, or Jim Sterling at Destructoid?  Compare Alex's 6 sources in his entire history with the Rogers' publishing history.
 * Stop bending over backwards - "shift the 2 items under "Criticism of the term 'art game'" where Kierkegaard" to find some sort of excuse to include his fringe theories. It reads to me like, "this is the best way I can get Kierkegaard's fringe theories back onto the main article, with a citation where he belongs." - hahnch e n 11:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I won't regard it as a breach of AGF that you are worried that I am trying to promote the source. I think it's only fair after I've expressed concern that you might be trying to censor the view. I think a little skepticism of edits related to controversial figures like this is healthy if it doesn't produce disruption. Just as I've accepted your word on the question of censorship, though, I ask you to accept my word on the issue of promotion. I honestly have no personal stake in Kierkegaard. You can take my word for it that there are many writers I'd rather be defending than this egotistical writer aspiring to be the next Nietzsche. I don't agree with his views on art games at all on a personal level so it would be easy for me to agree to present the article on art games without providing any criticism from him. But I think that wouldn't provide neutral and encyclopedic coverage of the topic. There are a lot of vocal people who subscribe to this guy's views. He's an extreme example of this anti art game perspective and it's convenient to cite him because he tends to condense all of the arguments he can come up with in his extremely long essays/polemics. So a single citation might cover claims explicitly and implicitly made by several other writers. My view is that it's better to cite him and let the reader judge the case for themselves than for me to shield the reader from his barbed tongue. For me it's more important to present the opposite perspective than to present The Truth. -Thibbs (talk) 12:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "There are a lot of vocal people who subscribe to this guy's views." - There are a lot of vocal people who subscribe to Hollow Earth theories. It's just that they've not been covered by any reliable expert.  Using Kierkegaard to back up criticisms on art game is like using Time Cube to back up the fact that time is measured in hours.  Yes, in this tiny instance, Time Cube guy is correct - but if you've already got reliable sources such as Tim Rogers (who I find unbearable), you do not cite Time Cube. - hahnch e n 19:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There's a substantive difference between airing pseudoscientific theories on a science article and airing minority criticism on an art-related article. It's the same difference we see between facts and opinions. When we speak about statements of fact, there is a correct and an incorrect. When we speak about opinions there may be multiple shades of correct. The fact that a minority of humans support Time Cube man indicates that he has charisma but it doesn't mean his contrarian view is authoritative on a subject for which there is only one correct interpretation. Reliability in that case requires clear credentials and a minority of supporting scientists at a minimum. The story is different for social opinions. Reliability issues are much more meaningless in the art context - who would question whether Kierkegaard is actually expressing his own view reliably? It's expected that opinion writers write what they truly believe. Credentials - such as they are - take the form of recognition from third party sources. In this case I've shown you a quite a few sources that all cite this Kierkegaard. These sources demonstrate him to have become a distinct part of the conversation about games. There's no reason to excise refs to such a writer provided that they aren't supporting unattributed fringe theories. -Thibbs (talk) 21:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC) (Striking because this is really splitting the discussion up and it should be restricted to the WT:VG thread for now. Sorry. -Thibbs (talk) 21:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC))

I'll leave it your way for now because this about your fifth revert by now (at "art game" and "games as art") and I'm just not interested in your slow-paced edit war games. Please note that this isn't tacit acceptance of the new "consensus of 1" that you're trying to strong-arm onto the article. I object strongly to your new ideas about what can and can't appear in the article, but you've managed to drag this on for so long that it now interferes with my vacation plans. Just as we've all refrained from interpreting your languorous pace as agreement to any compromises that have been offered, please don't consider my lack of response at any of the talk pages you're battling on to be agreement with your hardline approach. Again, I strongly object to your vision and I'll discuss it with you further when I return. -Thibbs (talk) 04:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Art game. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. There's a clear consensus on the talk page to include the link in the Further reading section. Diego Moya (talk) 17:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Art game, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Diego Moya (talk) 01:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Bullshit warnings from an involved editor above. Please stop trying to promote your favourite self-published book.  We use reliable sources on Wikipedia. - hahnch e n 00:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

September 2013
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically Hey Ya!, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Werieth (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Nefarious: Merchant of Souls
Hi Hahn,

Thank you for your comments at the Nefarious: Merchant of Souls featured article candidacy. I believe that I have addressed your concerns and have responded there. Please let me know if you have any remaining concerns regarding the article.

Neelix (talk) 11:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)