Talk:HA! HA!

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Removed "Original 'HA! HA! guy' source image" Link

Quoth the webhost, vix44: "Indeed, that is the original image, however it was posted elsewhere before I acquired it." "If you have an account, feel free to delete the link. One, it's already extant on the page in the inset box. Two, I will be losing my college webhosting soon when I graduate, so it will be a 404 in short order." —archagon 4.28.06 6:00 PM

[edit] There should defenitely be an image here.

    • I was banned over the HAHA guy incident on fark :( ** --
That doesn't surprise me. The moderators are douchebags. One of Fark's biggest flaws is that moderators have WAY too much ability to say what is and is not acceptable. I still remember when I got an account banned simply for linking to a Saturday Night Live website. Of course, since Drew is too drunk to ask someone/hire someone to code it so that you have to be given a reason WHY you were banned, then things are expected to be somewhat . . . aggravating when it comes to bannination. Anyway, Drew sucks and so does Fark. But HA, HA Guy shall live forever! --68.158.111.157
  • AMEN-- LONG LIVE HA!HA *

So what should the image say? --pile0nadestalk | contribs 11:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Image:Haha wikipedia.jpg
HA! HA! guy expounds on his notoriety
  • Well, this was what I had started the article with The Tom 15:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Don't make an image for the article.. it's too self-referential and in-jokey. I think we should have an image of the original denture ad, and one of the original photoshopped images from SA. Don't make Wikipedia part of the story. Rhobite 16:50, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • This picture made me laugh and is a perfect, on-target example of the Ha! Ha! Guy. Its a keeper! jmccorm 17:21, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately it's a pretty clear violation of the Wikipedia:Avoid self-references policy. Let's use an image which has already been created on another site. Rhobite 18:30, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Sadly, I think Rhobite is correct. Though I do really like the image, a fork of Wikipedia on another site would look ridiculous with the Wikipedia reference. Find the original SA image, the original denture ad, and maybe one of the top votes in the thread. blahpers 19:49, 2005 July 18 (UTC)
      • I put the original ad in. Don't feel like digging through SA right now for the original, but that should probably be on here. The "winners" of the Fark thread aren't too exciting: One of the top images is just the ha ha guy inserted into Bush's "mission accomplished" photo, another is a penis gourd reference. Rhobite 19:52, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • How do we know that the original is valid and/or unaltered? I see no links or information that can back up this claim other than the link to a personal university web site. L33t.h4x0r.w00t 20:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
    • The original ad would work best, but only with one or two mutations next to it, to give non-TFers an idea of the meme. Ceremony1968 20:20, 21 July (UTC)

I have edited the image caption as it is clearly not 'the original engraving' it is a print from a newspaper or other kind of press, this is easily determined by the feint images of printing from the other side of the sheet of paper which can be clearly seen in this image as a result of the scanning process. Dananimal 14:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perhaps this could have a better title?

I think this article could have a better title. "HA! HA! guy" doesn't sound very encyclopedic, and probably was one reason why it is being VfD'd right now. Maybe we could move it to:

  • "The Laughing Quaker"
  • "The Ha! Ha! Quaker"

or something. After the VfD, of course. Any other names? --pile0nadestalk | contribs 02:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Regardless of how "encyclopedic" it sounds, "HA! HA! Guy" is the most widely-used name for the meme. Plenty of other internet-meme articles have such titles, and no one seems to have a problem with them. (Or do they? I'm not about to do an exhaustive check of every discussion...) --Atario 05:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, "HA! HA! guy" will work. Or maybe "The HA! HA! guy"? --pile0nadestalk | contribs 05:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I just read on this Fark thread [1] that his name is Gayton Douglass. They read it from the backwards writing in the image. However, "Gayton Douglass" gets only 1 google hit. And the bottom part says "Photographic Supplies". --pile0nadestalk | contribs 11:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I imagine that's from whatever advertising (or whatever else) is on the other side of the paper that bled through in scanning. I'd not think it was related to this guy or his ad. --Atario 06:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Er, how exactly do we know that "insoluable dry plates" is the origional heading? We don't have the origional newspaper, after all. Heck, for all we know, the entire thing, including the guy's face and the faint "background" words, could have been made a few years ago. It's still funny either way. —Lenoxus 04:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not surprising

Leave it to Fark to take old SA material and run it into the ground.

[edit] Requested move

  • Talk:HA! HA! guy — HA! HA! guy → HA! HA! I'm using the Internet!!1 – The image is better known as this, and when people look for it, it is more likely they will use the term. — Noclip 13:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

  • Oppose 1. The image ([2]) uses 3 exclamation marks (i.e. HA! HA! I'm using the Internet!!!1) and 2. Although the original pre-Hetemeel phenomenon deserved an article entitled 'HA! HA! I'm using the Internet!!!1,' I think that the innovative usage on Hetemeel and Fark (and to a lesser extent, MySpace, etc.) forced a change of the phenomenon into the all-encompassing 'HA! HA! guy.' -ArcTheLad 20:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - The new title works better, and is also the text of the first time I saw the image. Besides, people looking for "HA! HA! guy" will just be redirected to the new title. --pile0nadestalk | contribs 21:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC); Edit: Also, "HA! HA! I'm using the Internet!!!1" gets 2800 google hits, while "HA! HA! guy" gets 348. --pile0nadestalk | contribs 00:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose per ArcTheLad's reasoning. -The Tom 21:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose While I'd support moving it to Quaker Guy (the name is endearing, the more so because he obviously isn't a Quaker), ArcTheLad 1. holds. blahpers 02:16, 2005 August 5 (UTC)
  • Oppose He is commonly known as the HA! HA! guy. The article's name is appropriate. Josh3736 21:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect Ha! Ha! I'm using the Internet!!!1 to this page, without moving anything. -- DocSigma 14:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moved

A lot of the above comments have convinced me that in general, broader is better. I've moved it instead to "HA! HA!" as the term is far more identifiable since it is does not contian any one particular suffix. Noclip 01:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Staring at his teeth

One person has commented that one may find the humor if one stares at HA! HA! guy's teeth for several seconds, then imagines his yelling "HA HA!"

The above line is far from encyclopedic, but I find it inexplicably hilarious, much like HA! HA! Guy himself, and I hope that future editors will never remove it. Tempshill 08:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Requiring a re-write?

"If the original newspaper could be located, or the advertisement dated using forensic techiques like font matching, we would know for sure. If the Advertisement was dated earlier than 1871 or later than the late 1880's we could rule out 'insoluble dry plates' as being a photographic product."

This paragraph stands out to me. Who is the "we" that it refers to? Is it even necessary?

Rewritten, and phrased as a debate between two camps.

One point on the "dental advert" theory: the use of the word "insoluble" would imply that competitors were selling inferior dental plates made of soluble materials, which sounds about as likely as a company selling chocolate coffee pots. Soluble has no place in dental prosthetics whatsoever! Gammonshanks 11:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
If the original newspaper can't be found, what proof do we have that this is real in the first place, and was not invented solely for the Fark thingy? — JIP | Talk 10:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I ditto you, JIP. I'm even going to write it myself elsewhere on this page, just you see. --Lenoxus 04:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I have hopes of finding an original magazine appearance soon, and I'll post a link to a scan ASAP. - Salmanazar 13:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] HAHAists???

I don't think discussion of the theories of this picture's origins is relevant. It's just a funny picture with indeterminate origins. Let's no get carried away trying to make this topic more important than it is.

128.239.178.106 20:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Anon

Well I, for one, geek out about pop culture and where it originates from. User:Evil Twin Skippy 2006-02-28


[edit] Harvey Birdman Reference

I am very sure that reference here is incorrect. Harvey Birdman premiered in 2000 and the characters have not changed so much. I say that part should be deleted --NegroSuave 03:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confirmed: HA HA guy is really advertisement for Photographic Plates

http://cgi.ebay.com/Small-Forbes-Photographic-Dry-Plate-Box-Insoluble-NR_W0QQitemZ290032494800QQihZ019QQcategoryZ711QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Forbes photographic plates for sale on Ebay.

I won that auction! The box is now proudly hanging in my cube. Would a picture of it be appropriate for the article, or not really needed? Doc Sigma (wait, what?) 12:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I think you should add a picture of the box. I for one would love to see it. Salmanazar 23:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simpsons Reference

As this has nothing to do with the article, I have removed this reference. --Iriseyes 23:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable Secondary Sources - WP:OR

Does this article/topic have anything in the way of reliable secondary sources? Has anyone written anything non-trivial about this meme? This whole article lacks Verifiability in the sense of secondary sources. It feel like Original Research. WP:OR. --129.97.84.62 19:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I added more warning about the lagginess of the Fark thread. (ChloeSong 21:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC))

[edit] So I stubbed the article to include only sourceable information. It is still an incredibly poorly sourced article.

I stripped this article down to what could be sourced. Everything else was unverifiable and poorly sourced. The article is still horrible, it sources 2 primary source, an ebay auction, and a list of cliches site, all of dubious reliability. --Quirex 18:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I added 2 more references about the plates themselves. Unfortunately the article still doesn't display any real level of verifiable notability or even being well sourced. The plates are better sourced than the meme. --Quirex 18:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Forbes Insoluble Dry Plates box

I own an empty box of Forbes Insoluble Dry Plates. It doesn't have the haha guy's picture on it, but since it's directly related to this topic (it settled the "dentist/photogtapher" debate!), I was wondering if a picture would be appropriate for the article. If so, how would I license it? Since I took the pic myself could I put it under a free license? Or, since it's a pic of something which may or may not be copyrighted, would it be tricky? Doc Sigma (wait, what?) 02:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/a/%21/Talk%7EHA%21_HA%21_fb1f.html"