User talk:HHahn

Reply
I have replied to your comment on my talk page. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 03:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: Barlow/Tamasflex
I have commented on this topic here. Please keep me informed as to other places I should comment if need arises. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 11:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. Are you trying to have him blocked in the en:WP? HHahn (Talk)  11:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Transmissometer.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Transmissometer.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Marcus  Qwertyus   21:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear mr. Marcus Qwertyus,
 * Thanks for the notification. But honestly, I do not understand why you are notifying me at all. I did use the photo, in the Dutch article nl:Transmissometer, but only directly from Commons. The notification, however, seems to refer to a copy on the English Wikipedia. I don't even know how to show an image from a language-Wikipedia; as far as I know, the Dutch Wikipedia doesn't even support this.
 * But nevertheless it would be interesting to know on what basis you decided to notify me. One is never too old to learn...
 * HHahn (Talk)  10:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you created a redundant file description page by adding a category to the English version of the file instead of the Commons file. Marcus   Qwertyus   22:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Hovenring
Hello HHahn,

I've noticed that you left a message on my old talk page on the Dutch Wikipedia. I'm responding here because I no longer contribute to the Dutch WP, on principle.

My article on the Hovenring is indeed based primarily on secondary sources rather than on primary sources. On the English WP this is necessary to establish notability, as secondary sources are more trusted than primary ones.

As you say, the role of Eindhovens nickname of "city of lights" is based on sources. If you can show that this source is factually incorrect, please do so. Otherwise, the source stands as is.

Civil engineering in English is not "weg- en waterbouwkunde" but "civiele techniek", which covers all of the built environment including what is known in Dutch as "kunstwerken". Civil engineering is therefore correct, although I have added a reference to mechanical engineering to reflect that the Eindhoven University of Technology teaches mechanical engineering and not civil engineering. The specialists in question are professors, as mentioned in the sources. -- BenTels (talk) 19:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello mr. Tels,
 * As I did not find any notice in your Dutch user page to the effect that you no longer work on the Dutch WP, I did not see any reason to react here in the English WP. After all, I only tried to discuss some points, not just editing them.
 * Anyhow, I am fully aware of the meaning of "civil engineering/civiele techniek" and "weg- en waterbouwkunde". My objection was merely that you suggested that civil engineers from TUE were involved. But TUE has no civil engineering at all.
 * As for the "primary" and "secondary" sources, I was mainly referring to "plans" versus "reports". An engineering company may make plans. But external influences, like the weather situation, may mess up the entire planning. This happened indeed, as the work on suppressing the vibrations was delayed several times due to bad weather conditions, as you know. The planned completion dates, however, are only interesting in two situations: (a) as long as the project is not yet completed, and (b) afterwards in a comparison of planned versus actual completion dates. When the project is complete (as is the case now), the actual dates are of primary interest for the readers.
 * Whether called a "primary" or "secondary" source, a newspaper or broadcast item is "factual" in the sense that it is written afterwards. It may, of course, contain "technical" errors, as is often the case when technically ignorant people write about technical matters. But in this case it is all about (the dates of) simple events that really have happened: the first official opening on 30 December 2011, the sudden re-closure within a week after that, the final opening on 29 June 2011. It is ridiculous to contest these dates on the basis of theoretical aspects of "source quality", even more so as the dates you mentioned were factually incorrect.
 * As for the role of the nickname "city of lights", I did not contest the reality of that nickname, nor the fact that this was mentioned in the source (I read it, too). The only thing I said wah that it is an irrelevant argument. The source was Eindhoven municipality's website, who obviously were boasting, as politicians often do (and the public servants obediently write it down). It is simply irrelevant, if not ridiculous(!) in this context. It might become interesting if it adds light in such an amount that the lighting of this construction obviously distinguishes Eindhoven from similar cities elsewhere. If this really was intended, it failed magnificently.
 * HHahn (Talk)  10:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have changed the article to specify mechanical as well as civil engineering in deference to the fact that the TU/e has no faculty of civil engineering. This fact does not mean that the TU/e has no people who are knowledgeable in the field, or in the physics of air flow, but the expansion does no harm.
 * The date changes you made are not under contest (at least not by me).
 * If you feel the editors of the municipal website were boasting, you will have to show that from countering sources. Failing that, the source stands. -- BenTels (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)