User:Hahnchen/Archive1

UKCOTW: History of the Orkney Islands
Just to let you know, an article you've voted for, has became this week's UKCOTW - History of the Orkney Islands. Come and help out! Cheers -- Joolz 21:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Proa article
That reversion was not intentional--I must have edited the wrong version somehow. As soon as I get a chance I'll fix that; if you get a chance before I do, by all means straighten things out. scot 14:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Blogging
It seems some wikipedians are just hell bent against blogging. I saw your vote for delete vote on metroblogging and I think you have a very even perspective. Perhaps you can go talk some sense into the folks at effect of hurricane katrina on new orleans? They are removed the link to the new orleans metroblogging site because they dislike blogs, even though it's clear from the discussion on the hurricane katrina talk that many users think it is a good link. Thanks. 12.111.139.2 02:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

3kr
In answer to your question.

3kr is the Egyptian god of the land itself. You might recognize the ancient name in the modern word acre but have no idea whether there is any connection. Linguists study the etymology of ancient words to look for cognates in modern English. The English language includes over 500,000 words and many of them are borrowed from other languages making the job of finding cognates a bit complicated. My particular interest is in a small subset of words that pertain to measures. Measures are usually systematic so in many cases it makes the establishment of cognates easier.

Since we still use many of those same systems there can be confusion if for example mille passus is redirected to mile which says nothing about it. Many times someone will just want some quick information about a modern statute mile and could care less about its history. In other cases where someone is doing classical, mathematical, scientific, historical, archaeological, linguistic or other specialized research it is really wonderful to stumble on one place where you can find the detailed information you need.

As to where the 3 comes from, in translating ancient languages there are a number of linguistic conventions for implied vowels in words that are written using consonants only. I find that subset interesting to talk about if you have more questions but it needs some pages to be written to define the different terms.

I tried writing perhaps 30 or so stubs which talk about some of the terms being used in the main articles but they have all been deleted in the last month by people who find it offensive rather than enlightening to encounter things they don't know. Rktect 01:25, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Please see my comment on VfD
Dude. We've created a monster over on that deletion page.

So many people. Who don't know. How to use. Wikipedia.

Arrrrrg!

--Tedzsee 05:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Killer Japanese Seizure Robots
No problem about the relisting, funny how much action it got afterwards! Anyway, sorry about the delayed response, I took a little wikibreak....take care! Rx StrangeLove 04:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

comixpedia
I really want to vote to keep Syntax Error (webcomic) at AFD, but I can't quite justify arguing it. (It has two years existence with just over 300 strips archived. I'd like to argue that it's pseudo-3D appearance and use of Maya makes it notable but I don't have the numbers to back it up.)   I think the google count may be a little low because it's hard to filter out the computer term 'syntax errors' and I don't trust alexa rankings yet, but I still don't have the nubmers to back it up.

Anyways, is there a procedure for transwiki to comixpedia? RJFJR 17:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I personally don't think it is notable enough for wikipedia. I know you have worked on the article, but it just isn't popular enough of have any sort of influence on the outside world, or even webcomic community as a whole.  I do however, think that it's very suitable for comixPedia.  I've had a look at some of the copied over pages there, and all they do is cut and paste.  Histories etc are not copied.  Remember to transwiki to an article named "Syntax Errors", the (webcomic) disambig is not needed. - Hahnchen 23:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Webcomics for deletion
I saw your note on the Gemini Bright AfD page where you said: "I had a look at List of webcomics yesterday and it is just a webcomic advertising portal, I randomly clicked on some, and then google/alexa checked them, and so much there is non-notable." I agree completely. I started the chore of listing on my user page all webcomics on wikipedia by alexa rank. At some point I was going to start at the bottom and make some nominations for deletion. Maybe you'll find my list helpful in your own clean-up efforts. Dragonfiend 18:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Heh, thanks Dragonfiend. I already knew about your list when I checked out your userpage for the talk pages at WP:COMIC.  It has been a useful guide. - Hahnchen 18:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Webcomics
Several of the webcomics I read have been recently nominated for deletion by you. They weren't even among the more obscure ones that I know of; they've included some pretty notable names. Is there some kind of anti-webcomic vendetta going on that I should be aware of? Factitious 14:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not a webcomic fan, I've just been nominating the obscure and unpopular ones. There seems to be a lot of junk in the webcomic section and I was just clearing through some.  There's still unnotable keenspace ones up.  I've not nominated any keenspot ones yet because I don't know how their invite only system works or how notable they are.  The whole WP:COMIC is wrong, imagine if that criteria were applied to normal websites, pretty much every one would be let in.  And just because you personally read them, does are they notable?  Probably the most notable thing that I nominated was Electric Sheep Comix, is that where you came from?  The thing is, its been a dead website for a few years, it's an "art site" for Patrick Farley.  But because it's classed as a webcomic and not a website, somehow that makes it more notable?  What do you think would happen to a art site by David Hockney, or Damien Hirst.  Does www.davidhockneypage.com or www.damienhirst.com get deleted?  Yes, and it would probably have a small mention in the artist page, just as I feel this one should. - Hahnchen 12:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * There's no way you can compare webcomics to ordinary websites, webcomics are visited every day and often have stacks of loyal readers. I think you need to find a different category to sort out, as you are clearly not suitable to moderate this one. [unsigned]
 * Yes, because webcomics are infinitely more important than any other websites. Wrong. - Hahnchen 12:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of obscure ones that I read, as I said. But you've been nominating things like Triangle and Robert and Irritability. Would it be too much to ask that you do some research beyond Alexa (which you know is unreliable) before trying to delete articles? Factitious 14:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I've made mistakes. But the article should make some assertion of notability.  I still don't see why Irritability is more notable than any other website.  Gleaning what I have from the Triangle and Robert afd, I wouldn't nominate it again, even some none webcomic people have heard of it, and it seems to be the first "rubbish drawing" comic.  I still maintain however, that longevity does not equal notability. - Hahnchen 14:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think you might make fewer of those mistakes if you did more research into topics before trying to delete them. You don't need to make a major project of it, but if you don't have 15 minutes to spare checking the facts for yourself, maybe it's not something to bring to AFD. Factitious 05:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Contrary to what you might think, I do try to do some research into the thing that I'm deleting. I also spotted that Acid Reflux was kept, and looking at the arguments, rightly so.  But for a dead comic like that, I would have thought that its former popularity, top of bigpanda would be noted in the article.  With that comic, it was difficult to do a google test, because of the disease of the same name.  And even so, I could not find any article or opinion piece relating to the webcomic even with tighter search queries, which would lift the comic from any other website.  I am however, certain, that most of the comics I have nominated have been correctly made, and the majority of the comics that I have nominated have been deleted.  I do value input from those knowledgable in webcomics for my nominations, but for every sane wikipedian like yourself, there some who would kill to have their article on the Wiki. - Hahnchen 17:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * In Articles for deletion/The Jaded, you mentioned that you hadn't even known it was on Graphic Smash when you nominated it. The lack of research is pretty clear. Factitious 22:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * By the way, I do see that you've also been nominating some very non-notable webcomics. I haven't been involving myself with those discussions since they just aren't comics I'm familiar with, so I don't have an informed opinion on them. Factitious 22:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Jamil al Banna
I am letting you know that the article has been expanded since you voted for deletion. -- Geo Swan 19:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Comics and merging
Hey, I just wanted to say I appreciate your efforts. Seems like every random webcomic in the world is having articles written about them these days. One thing I'd do, if I were you, is consider merging/redirecting some of them. For example, today, you could have redirected Luke Markle to his webcomic, since that's his only alleged claim to fame. Then, you just have the one article to list on Afd instead of two. Just a suggestion. Friday (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding your Comment on my Blog
Hi Hahnchen.

Perhaps I was a mite out of line by referring to you as a "rampaging prick". I don't think that myself, or Jamie, or Euan, or anyone else with an article you've deleted or nominated for a VfD, or even anyone in the Webcomic Community (larger or otherwise) would argue with the fact that you simply seem to have no concept of how the Wonderful World of Webcomics actually works. After all, you've stated yourself that you're not a fan of webcomics. To me, you hardly seem the ideal person to be administering this group. In addition to which, you base a large portion of your argument against a webcomic on its Alexa ranking. It's already eben established by various people that the Alexa rankings are about as much use as a Condom Machine in the Vatican, seeing as they only count websites in the US, amongst various other issues. You've basically set out with a vendetta against a large number of webcomics with a huge following based on this information. Based on a premise you've set by yourself that a website that doesn't get x number of hits isn't worthy of being collected in an Encylopedia.

Have a look at how many hits WWdN gets. That's a Blog. Why haven't you gone for that?

Incidentally, I'd love to see the sort of response you'd get if you nominated Penny Arcade up for deletion. Or CTRL+DLT+DEL. Or any of the "larger" webcomics.

The Wikipedia is supposed to be a collection of knowledge, but it seems to me (and to many others, even those not webcomic related) that the Wiipedia is only for information that the Overlords want us to see.

A thought - how many TV shows that had poor ratings are listed on the Wikipedia?

Be seein' ya. kid. --Squirminator2k 13:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm back at university now, so I will be cutting time from the wiki. I'd probably merge wwdn with Wil Wheaton rather than delete.  But wwdn is more popular than all the webcomics I have nominated, and Wil Wheaton is more notable than any webcomic author that I have nominated.  I'm sure that Wil Wheaton has a lot more readers than the webcomics I have personally nominated.  There is a difference between not being a fan, and hating webcomics.  I don't hate them, I read a couple of the more notable/popular ones.  I would never nominate Penny Arcade, for example (although I don't read that one).


 * Alexa rankings may not be accurate, but they do show the general "league" the website is in. I also believe they count alexa hits from all countries, and not just the US.


 * No, x number of hits is not the pure indication of how notable something is, and hence, I have made some mistakes, some comics have achieved notoriety/popularity earlier on and now died may be notable. I do not mind what you call me on your blog, it is yours.  And if a blog had a neutral point of view, it would be wholy boring. - Hahnchen 13:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * WWdN is a seperate entity from Wil Wheaton. Wheaton's career as a writer woudl not exist without WWdN, so it's noteworthy. That's my feeling regarding that matter, but then again we're different people. I say "Toe-may-toe", you say "Nominate it for deletion".


 * I didn't think you'd nominate Penny Arcade. For one thing, the fan uproar would be incredible. PA wouldn't need a "Call to Arms" because the fans would do it for them. But I find myself wondering if you'd put a small-time webcomic up for nomination if you yourself were a regular reader. I don't think you'd be a reader of a smaller webcomic - you seem to only like the Big Boys. In that respect, you're rather similar to a Sheep, following the flock with what's popular and cutting out anything that isn't. The problem is when the Sheep tries to Shepard, someone's going to make a noise*. Which is exactly what is going to happen with regards to this Webcomic thing you're doing.


 * I can see your point of view. As far as you're concerned, the Wikipedia needs to remain a repository of information. People need to look up the important things. Rooms is hardly important. But then again, webcomics are hardly important. Something Awful isn't really important, either. When you get right down to it, most of the Internet isn't really important. But it's here. People know where to find it. If you want to go all Vader on the whole scenario, why not NfD practically all websites listed on the Wikipedia? After all, this is the Internet - people can find the site themselves.


 * And you didn't answer my Tv Ratings question. --Squirminator2k 19:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * *(note: Euan Mumford, creator of Rooms, actually used this analogy to describe you in a chat we had recently. I borrowed it, but the credit is his. As far as I'm concerned, it's a well-justified analogy)


 * Oh, another thing - some TV shows have seperate articles for ''specific episodes;;. I thought Wikipedia was an encyclopedia, not a TV Guide... --Squirminator2k 22:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I actually prefer the analogy that Jamie McGarry used, with me as an angry angry wolf, out to get all the sheep. But let's put those things aside.  If you need a "call to arms" post to try and save a piece from deletion, then it should probably be deleted.  I have made mistakes as noted above, but wikipedia needs to have some sort of bar of inclusion.  I mean, I had actually planned on afding all the Psycheverse articles, as you anticipated in your own webcomic article.  However, this is not a sort of personal vendetta against webcomics.  We have to set the bar somewhere, and in my eyes, that bar is somewhere inbetween something awful and psychverse.  There hasn't really been a organised deletion by my part.  I didn't see Rooms, and think, "Yes! Let's get those psychverse guys!".


 * I know I have upset the small webcomic group that you are apart of. And as an act of good faith.  I gave psycheverse as well as Jamie McGarry a deletion reprieve, and I won't personally nominate them for quite a while.  But please, the behaviour towards wikipedia by some members of your community have been, well petty to say the least.  Your own vandalisation of your Fried article for example.  What was the point?  Why is it so important that you all have your own articles, and are prepared to defend them to the last?  Is it ego?  pride?  The fact that your article already exists on comixPedia seems to be irrelevent to you, it's like if an article of yours gets deleted from the wiki, it somehow hurts your comic? Does it hurt that comics you don't like or read are still listed over yours?


 * And as for my personal webcomic reading? I don't just follow the big boys, by any means.  I don't just read/watch/listen to things just because they are popular.  I go for what I like, and popularity is not a main influence of my personal preferences.


 * TV varies. If it's a massively popular program, without a continuing storyline, say The Simpsons, then I think each episode should have its own entry.  Whereas Eastenders should just have season sumaries as all episodes are interlinked.  The Thick of It was one of my favourite series of this year, it may not have massive viewing figures, but it's notable for other reasons.  And I would merge all episodes with the main article. - Hahnchen 16:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Episode guides are very controversial, with many people feeling they should be merged or trimmed to terse lists, if included at all. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm going to butt in here; hope you don't mind, Hahnchen.
 * I am knowledgable about the webcomics community, and, sorry, most of these webcomics aren't notable at all. User:Hahnchen doesn't have any sort of vendetta against webcomics, as he's already gone looking for Wikipedians with a working knowledge of the webcomics community who aren't particularly invested in specific articles.
 * The bar isn't being set very high; but most of these webcomic listings are vanity listings, meant to advertise the webcomic in question.
 * Penny Arcade doesn't need a lame fan invasion to defend it on AFD; it's clearly notable, as it's newsworthy and influential in the webcomic community. Even stuff like Dinosaur Comics and RPG World passes muster for notability, as far as I'm concerned.
 * It's clear you have a chip on your shoulder over the article for Rooms. The forums are a wasteland. The comic isn't influential in the webcomic community. There's no claim that the webcomic is exceptional in some way.
 * Contrasted with failed TV shows, TV shows are publically promoted products of a large industry, and their failure is frequently a newsworthy event. Webcomics are none of these things. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, the analogy was 'Two wolves and a hundred sheep voting on dinner...but the sheep don't get a vote.' And it was Dave Mooney who said it.  Also, I have now finally accepted that inviting random outsiders was a mistake when trying to defend my article.  I didn't realise at the time what an exclusive club wikipedia is.  -- Hijamiefans
 * Just for the actual real record, the analogy was "It's like four wolves and a lamb voting on dinner, and the lamb not having a vote." If the subject in question is notable, you shouldn't have to invite random outsiders to spout their mouths off.  Has the quality of your comic dropped sharply since its delisting from Wikipedia?  Why has it upset/angered you that your comic did not meet standards of notability on Wikipedia?  Are you affected in any sort of way, other than a small possible ego-bash? - Hahnchen 20:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Here's another analogy you could have used. "It's like adults and kids voting on the general election... but the kids don't get a vote.  OH NO!" - Hahnchen 20:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Having an article doesn't affect the comic itself, I just feel it affects wikipedia users to not have any information on certain webcomics of note. Believe it or not, I have been using wiki for several years (well, one at least) and think it's a very good site.  My main beef with this situation is how it was treated - rules were adhered to or ignored depending on what you lot felt like at the time. -- Hijamiefans

Webcomics
When you put up a webcomic for AFD can you drop me a note so I can transwiki it to comixpedia? RJFJR 19:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Will do in future. May not be putting that many articles up for deletion, back at university and have several projects coming up. - Hahnchen 19:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

RE: 8 1/2 by Eleven deletion
Please note that I had NOTHING to do with the creation of that article. At all. (Besides my comments on that one deletion debate, which were not meant to be taken seriously). Please also see my comments on the deletion page for 8 1/2 by Eleven. I hope they're rather balanced.

Also, thanks for your steady and thoughtful comments on the Comixpedia.org deletion page. --Tedzsee 22:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * No probs, I thought the 8 1/2 by Eleven article was just a WP:POINT thing by Jamie McGarry. As for your comixpedia.org entry, I think it is useful to have its contents in the comixpedia entry.  Not being part of the webcomic community, I associate comixPedia more with the wiki than the magazine, and it was confusing that it wasn't even mentioned in the comixPedia entry. - Hahnchen 13:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Damn right it was me! It was more of experiment really, to see if the Alexa rating would save it. -- Hijamiefans

The Need For Research
Hahnchen, you previously said that you would start doing basic research before trying to delete articles. However, in your nomination of Life on Forbez, you said, "I think it was one time a part of the graphicsmash community, but I'm not too sure." If you had checked our article on Graphic Smash, or searched on Google, you would have found the answer to your question. You should try to find out about the topic before resorting to deletion, not after. Please, stop trying to delete articles when you have no idea about the topic. You've been making useful contributions in other areas; webcomics seem to be the only blind spot.Factitious 23:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The only thing Google came up with relating GraphicSmash to Life on Forbez were all dead, hence the "one time part of". Another point, I didn't previously say that I would start doing basic research, I always have - Hahnchen 14:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hahnchen, I just wanted to thank you for doing invaluable work on cleaning up the many non-notable webcomics articles. Regarding Life on Forbez, I'm a Modern Tales and Graphic Smash subscriber and I'd never even heard of the comic before. Anyway, just wanted to say "Keep up the good work." Dragonfiend 23:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)