Talk:Hacker Emblem
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 4 November 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
So, how is this notable? Eric wants to promote his fancy logo - that's nice and all but nobody except him[citation needed] uses it. The citations proving anyone cares about the logo are lacking as well though. All citations are just referencing Eric and his website over and over.
- Agreed. Someone propose deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.128.47.52 (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Eric, I know you're watching this article like a hawk. We don't need a logo, certainly not one designed by a committee of one.
I see the previous talk page has been deleted. We can't have dissent, now can we? -- 09:42, 16 August 2010 83.7.162.236
- Previous talk page was deleted because it said "kjkl" and nothing else. DS (talk) 12:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- That sounds like a good reason to replace the contents of a talk page, not to outright delete it. Also, the deleter put "csd g2" as the deletion comment instead of saying something like "spam" or just leaving the default comment of "content was 'kjkl'" that would have been there. As-is, there is no way for a normal user who looks at the deletion to know that it really said only "kjkl". I'm assuming good faith here and believing that that really was the content, but this is the stuff conspiracy theories are made of. --MarkGyver (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- I've actually found that nearly all conspiracy theories concern things that, were they true, anybody on earth would give a shit about 09:16, 22 March 2011 99.70.122.98
- That sounds like a good reason to replace the contents of a talk page, not to outright delete it. Also, the deleter put "csd g2" as the deletion comment instead of saying something like "spam" or just leaving the default comment of "content was 'kjkl'" that would have been there. As-is, there is no way for a normal user who looks at the deletion to know that it really said only "kjkl". I'm assuming good faith here and believing that that really was the content, but this is the stuff conspiracy theories are made of. --MarkGyver (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to propose a larger version of the logo that includes more than the codes for EOT, ENQ, and ACK: http://www.science.uva.nl/faculteit/museum/pictures/ASCIIcode.gif — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enoksrd (talk • contribs) 02:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
⠠⠵ or ⠬⠆?[edit]
⠠⠵ is one way, another would be ⠬⠆ and there probably a few others, why only one? --TiagoTiago (talk) 00:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I've nominated the article for deletion[edit]
Epitome of self-publishing. Please also see the discussion pages at Eric S. Raymond and Hacker (software). The issues there are a little more complicated, but there is definitely a notability issue when it comes to this logo. Elinruby (talk) 01:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Merge with Glider (Conway's Life)[edit]
Someone added a merge tag in January, but didn't add anything to the talk page about it. If we can't provide sources to say anything about the Hacker Emblem beyond "Eric S Raymond suggested it in 2003" (the AFD showed that it's been picked up here and there by likeminded people, but offered no reliable sources), it seems reasonable to just merge it. Thoughts? --McGeddon (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)