User:Hahnchen/Archive8

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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:

it's a unused, duplicate

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 [[Talk:Image:Burnout.jpg|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)

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)

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)

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)

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/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hahnchen&action=edit&section=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)
• 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)

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.

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare

Your concerns have been addressed. Gary King (talk) 20:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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))

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)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 09:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Stop

You cannot remove my comments from Mike's talk page - please read and make sure you understand WP:TALK. You are right to remove it from NeoGAF and PS3, but the user talk page it must stay. You cannot ignore all rules over something as simple as this. Another thing, to be a sockpuppet, you need to have an account - which I don't have. Also, please read up on WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA - comments such as "piss off" are not welcome or necessary. The only reasons I can see for you wanting to have my comment removed is either:-

• You are a blind Xbox fanboy who doesn't want an negative comments about MS on WIkipedia.
• You are an MS PR guy as well, so you're trying to keep it quiet
• You are in fact Mike Zoran, and you don't want these facts known about you.

Whatever your reasons, you are wrong to remove it, and those comments will stay on that page. Thank you. 124.186.191.119 (talk) 05:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't bullshit me, I can do what the hell I want with this talk page. Right now, I'm giving you the privilege of my time in answering your ridiculous claims. You don't have an account? I doubt it, who else would come up with all this WP:RANDOM WP:LETTERS WP:CRAP? I've not read WP:TALK, I don't intend to, it's a guideline, follow those if you wish. I use common sense on user talk pages, I don't have to adhere to fucking guidelines when the user obviously doesn't want your material there, and when that material is slander. Because that kind of breaks WP:BLP, which is policy. Continually posting your rants on Mgoblue's talk page, and article talk pages clearly breaks the WP:DICK rule.

Have you read WP:NPA? Do you know what a personal attack is? An attack that focuses on the person, such as calling someone a cunt[2], or continually posting a character assassination on a user talk page. Does that sound familiar?

And I'm either one of the three that you mention? You're joking right? That's pathetic, I could be fucking all of them, there's no either about it. Here's another one, maybe, I just don't like it when people vandalise articles to post their own little rants. Seriously, trying to "recruit" the VGChartz crowd to "help you out"? VGChartz? A community based around a website which steals NPD data so you can have your console pissing matches? You're stooping low, what next, the GameFAQs crowd? How about the Smashboards? - hahnchen 19:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you seem like a very intelligent, respectable person after that. His fucking talk page is not an article, idiot, so it's not vandalism. What a fucking hypocrite you are - you won't fucking adhere to WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL, but you get up other people for not following them? Jesus Christ you fucking pansy, grow up. If you really aren't this Mike Zoran, then you have no interest in the matter - so get the fuck out. It's that fucking simple. Another thing, it's not fucking slander if it's true - his job with MS has been confirmed ages ago. Even if it was slander - which it isn't - WP:BLP wouldn't cover it as a user talk page is not a biographical article. And WP:DICK? WTF? That's not even up to "guidline" status - it's a fucking essay.

I couldn't care less if you keep reverting the talk page - I'll just revert back. If you get it Semi-protected, I'll just create an account. If you get it fully protected, then he can no longer add bullshit to it. Then if I fuckign want to, I'll create an account, and put all the true info about him on my user page, then link it to his page, just to let the actual good editors (you know, the ones who aren't you) know about his agenda. You truly are pathetic if you wanna fight over this - you shoudl never have gotten involved in the first place, but being the fucking British egomaniac you are, you couldn't help but stick your nose into someone else's business.

Jesu Christ, get a real job cunt. 60.228.218.179 (talk) 06:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Since your last update, I actually went to take a look at WP:TALK, you really shouldn't cite it in your shitty poorly thought out arguments. Usually, people reference pages which support their position, you chose to cite a page which refuted your argument - WP:TALK#User_talk_pages. Top class logic.

I never claimed to adhere to WP:CIVIL, my edit history and talk pages attest to that. What I don't do, is bandy them about like they matter, anyone who does is just using them as a diversionary tactic because their real arguments are pathetic. What you saw above, was not "getting up at people", but throwing back your own arguments in your hypocritical face.

When I spot people posting ill conceived rants in the article space, I chase it up. When they then post bullshit in the edit summaries about WP:TALK meaning that you can't remove slander from your own talk page, I chase it up. When that user is obviously familiar with Wikipedia guidelines, and revert wars using dynamic IP accounts, I'll stick my nose in. It's kind of cathartic to dismiss someone's arguments out right, and then telling them to piss off. Don't go too hard on yourself, buddy. - hahnchen 20:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Mike_mgoblue

Thank you for defending me and offering advice, Hahnchen. I think it is a terrible shame that there is a person who is attempting to spread false information about me [Michael Zoran] on the Internet. I have updated my Discussion Page so that it specifically handles each situation. I have corrected some of the grammar errors, too. If you want to talk with me online, please feel free to do so. Any advice you can offer me would be appreciated. Sincerely, Mike mgoblue (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned, it's your talk page, police it how you want. Don't let people intimidate you with rules, it's usually a diversionary tactic when there's something broken in their argument. If you carry on getting more stuff from anonymous editors thrown at you, you can ask for an admin to semi-protect your user and talk pages so that only users registered may post at WP:RFPP. - hahnchen 20:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Image wanted

Hi. I noticed you commented on this engine image. You may like to comment on the planned new image here Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Shadowgrounds2.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Shadowgrounds2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Shadowgrounds1.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Shadowgrounds1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

4X FAC

Thanks for reviewing the images and fair use justifications for the 4X article. User:Masem also looked at similar issues, and I took the time to address his comments. I figure you're busy, but I would appreciate it if you found a moment to check in at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/4X, just to let me know if I've addressed the issues you've identified. Thanks again. Randomran (talk) 19:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sam & Max development information?

You say you have a print article relating to the development of Sam & Max Hit the Road? What's in it, anything useful that could be used in the article? -- Sabre (talk) 18:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. It's a "Making of" article, Retro Gamer catches up with Steve Purcell and he discusses the development of the game. I dug around my archives a bit and found out that I also have the article that I mentioned Miremare had, but it turns out that isn't too useful. If you send me an email using the "E-mail this user" button to the right, I'll respond with the attached articles. - hahnchen 18:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, email sent. I've not used the email function on Wikipedia before, hope it all goes fine. I shan't email Miremare if the article isn't that useful then. -- Sabre (talk) 18:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Email received. Certainly looks like quite a bit of information sitting in these articles, I'll read them over and get the stuff in. Thanks Hahnchen! If you happen to come across any contempory reviews, please do tell me. Most of the few I've found have been retrospective reviews, which as you say aren't that brilliant. -- Sabre (talk) 18:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you give me some dates for the two magazines? I can't find one on the front cover of either in the files you've sent. A year and a month (if possible) would be great for the references. I've somewhat expanded the article with the Making of source by the way, I trust it looks right to your eyes (although I imagine a bit of a copyedit may be necessary for context with the adventure game mechanics). -- Sabre (talk) 12:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Retro Gamer don't explicitly mention the month of publication, but that issue corresponds to March 2006. You should also credit the author, Ashley Day. I'm not sure when the Games TM Retro compilation was released, it was a one off. You could ask around on the Games TM forum if it's important - http://gamestm.co.uk/forum, I don't think it is. - hahnchen 18:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I thought it might be another full magazine, as it said "Volume 1". I'll shove the date and the author into the Retro Gamer reference, thanks. -- Sabre (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't suppose I could ask you for some help regarding the game's reception section? Everytime I try to write it, I simply cannot find the words I need. The sources are there, along with the review you gave, there's the few on Game Rankings that can be used as well as the Allgame and Egde ones, but I'm just struggling to write the damned thing. Any assistance you could give with dealing with the reception section would be greatly appreciated. -- Sabre (talk) 11:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I actually think there's not enough available right now to write a featured level reception section. Ideally you'd want reviews from the games press back in the early 90s, which would include titles such as PC Zone and Computer Gaming World. I don't know of anyone who has access to them. As for the prose, I don't really have time for any writing, but right now, it's lacking any response to the gameplay/puzzle design. You might want to see if you can tie in the graphics' reception with the new SCUMM version it used. Sorry I can't be of much help. - hahnchen 11:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Top spin2.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Top spin2.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) 05:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment about Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The list isn't a part of the article being featured. This post (found here: Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Mario_&_Sonic_at_the_Olympic_Games): With discussion in three different places aobut the list of events, no clear consensus has emerged to convince me I should hold off promotion over that issue. I do hope the involved Projects will work to develop a guideline for future articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC). So it being in the article when it was promoted or not, isn't relevant to it's value at all. However the part about a consensus is wrong. Only a small amount of editors (with you the only one edit warring regularly, to re-add the list) want the list. Stop being difficult and accept the fact the consensus is against the list. How many people against the list do you need, before you stop edit warring: 10, 20, 100? Just stop edit warring, this is getting old. RobJ1981 (talk) 16:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The closing comment specifically states there was no clear consensus over the inclusion of the list. Take a look at the discussions, the majority of editors have declared a non-commital response as to the inclusion of the list, that's a clear no-consensus. Your clear cut declaration of what falls into Wikipedia, and what is WP:NOT was also not supported. Please address the comments at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Mario_.26_Sonic_at_the_Olympic_Games_list_problems_again instead of taking it here. - hahnchen 03:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please keep discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Mario_.26_Sonic_at_the_Olympic_Games_list_problems_again. - hahnchen 03:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Malice Manual Cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Malice Manual Cover.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 01:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Mat Hoffman's Pro BMX 2.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Mat Hoffman's Pro BMX 2.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) 05:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Main Page redesign

The Main Page Redesign proposal is currently conducting a straw poll to select five new designs, before an RFC in which one will be proposed to replace the Main Page. The poll closes on October 31st. Your input would be hugely appreciated! Many thanks, Pretzels^Talk! 14:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Against All Odds (video game)

On 29 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Against All Odds (video game), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 09:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)