Jump to content

User talk:Q Chris

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Amarhindustani (talk | contribs) at 23:58, 18 March 2009 (→Francis Lucille: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Acegi Security

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Acegi Security, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Propaniac 13:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hoplophobia

I noticed your sig in the discussion of Gun politics. One other user and I are having a disagreement about Hoplophobia and I think that the discussion would benefit from more people than just the two of us. Check the lengthy discussion page first, if you are up to getting involved. Thanks. —BozoTheScary 17:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of bradfordians

Could you look @ talk page & comment, the list was getting huge & wanted a second opinion on those I cropped, Thanks, --Nate1481( t/c) 08:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered in the Talk:Bradford‎ article. -- Q Chris 14:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australia

Well spotted, Chris! That edit in question came from what can only be described as a "gun nut" who - or his friends - periodically rants about Australian gun control. Australia is not a paramilitary police state. Of course, its human rights record in the last 10 years has been fairly unedifying, but that's mainly due to various anti-minority/refugee legislation passed by the Howard government, not gun laws. Slac speak up! 10:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shivsena

You wanted to read about this right.--Redtigerxyz 13:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks yes!

Vegetarianism in Americas

Okay, from your personal perspective, what is hard about identifying the content of most foodstuffs from their list of ingredients as to whether or not they contain animal products? As a vegetarian, I personally, have never had any problems, but if there are, I'd like to know of them just to be sure.Tasermon's Partner 09:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the [Article discussion page entry] for info. -- Q Chris 09:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 08:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trapezoid

Trapezoid

I note that you reverted my edit, and from your user page I note that you probably learnt your maths in my native county! I am aware that both trapezium and trapezoid have been used in the past to mean a general quadrilateral with no parallel sides, but the last such use I can find is from 1851. I would be interested to know when you were taught that a trapezoid is a general quadrilateral with no special qualities. The point I was making is that this usage is no longer current in modern English anywhere in the world as far as I can see, but I have not finished my research, so I will not undo your edit until I collect more proof, and until I hear from you. Best wishes, dbfirs 09:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poverty in India Image

Beggar in Bodhgaya

There is a discussion going on regarding whether or not the following image should be a part of the Poverty in India page. Most Poverty in *Country* pages do not have any images, at most 1. User:Otolemur crassicaudatus has brought many images showing extreme poverty in India and has tried to mislead people into thinking this is the way a majority of poor Indians live. There is a vote in which your input would be appreciated. You can find this discussion here

I feel that the the Bodhgaya Beggar image does not represent poverty in India correctly because:

  • The beggar in Bodhgaya image does not accurately depict poor people in India because they do not look like this. This man is an exception. To say that this man represents all poor people in India is very wrong. A small minority of Indias poor are disabled. Most living under the poverty line work long hours fishing, farming or as construction workers. This picture shows a man whose legs have been broken. Unless a majority of India's or even a fraction of the poor have legs like this, the image is irrelevant and undue to the poverty in india page.
  • Poverty and Disability are not connected in any way. There are thousands of super rich people who are disabled.
  • There are 11 country articles on poverty
  • This user is being uncivil and unyielding. This user has tried to have my user page deleted because it said America is priceless!
  • This image is being used by User:Otolemur crassicaudatus to display his dislike of India and to mislead people into thinking that this is the plight of millions of poor Indians. This user has often added images showing extreme poverty to many India relating articles.[1] Even though this user knows that poverty is present in every country and that extreme poverty is not a fair representation of the Indian economy, this user has previously tried to add an image of children washing their clothes in a mud puddle to the economy section of the India page. This user has added this image to the poverty section of the Economy of India page, when a graph showing poverty would make more sense.
  • WP:Undue says:
We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute.

This can be applied to this because a very tiny fraction of poor people in India are disabled. Most work very hard trying to make a living for themselves. This image is misleading. Nikkul (talk) 02:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Q Chris, in your talk page this user has made wild accusations on me. I will request you please read the relevant sections on Talk:Poverty in India to give you an inside in this user and to understand who is incivil. You please read the texts like these [2], [3], [4]. The Bodggaya beggar image is more appropriate than others because:

  • You may know, many beggars live a condition like this, many of them have various disabilities.

There is no "typical" definition of poverty, or beggar. There are abled beggar, disabled beggar. The purpose of the article is depicting poverty. The other beggar images which this user want to place deleting the Bodhgaya beggar image are not good quality, one is B&W, and the other depicting a beggar girl in Ladakh. But my objection here is that Ladakh is quite different from rest of the country because of its geographics. Majority Indians live in plain. And this Bodhgaya beggar image is showing poverty at its most extreme level. It is not right to conceal the situation of poor men like this, it is the truth, the reality. This image touches the heart of the reader, which is a real situation. Yes not all beggars are disabled, but is this an argument? On the other hand it also can be said that not all beggars are abled. Our job here is not to understand who is abled, or who is not. But to find a good image which is representative of many.

  • This user is repeatating his arguments and has taken a densive position by his ad hominem attack on me. Any one do not agree with him, here I am trying to depict poverty, and he is labelling me as Indophobic. There are other editors who honoured me for my contributions. The only reason given against this image that "since all beggars have not messed up legs, this image is undue". But it is an anti-individualistic argument. So what if not all beggars do not have messed up legs? The fact is that such secenes is a reality and it would not be right to conceal it. Such scenes exists, it is the truth. If it is reality, if such scenes exits, then an article depicting poverty i.e. "the condition of lacking full economic access to fundamental human needs such as food, shelter and safe drinking water", only those images should remain which clearly illustrate this fact.
  • This user has informed many partisan editors, like User:Bakasuprman about the image. This user also informed this to banned Hkelkar socks. I will also request you check this user's contributions. Please remember the article is not about India, but the article is about poverty. This article is not depicting India, depicting poverty in India. So such image is not deriding India, it is illustrating the poverty in India. This image, I think, will be very appropriate. Your right judgement will be appreciated. I have told you why I am supporting the includsion of this image. Regards. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring "from popular culture" section in article Imaginary friend

Hi, I saw someone deleted the "in popular culture" section from the article Imaginary friend, and you restored it.

I'm not the guy who deleted it, but as I normally don't like "in popular culture" sections, perhaps I can give you some reasons to consider.

  • "In popular culture" sections normally end up turning into what should better be called "in contemporary American entertainment media" sections. For example, when you look at this list, almost all the examples are from contemporary TV shows, movies and books that originated in the US. You could make the case that Snuffleupagus transcends American culture because of the international success of Sesame Street, maybe, but many of the rest are pretty US-specific. I think it illustrates that "in popular culture" is pretty meaningless as a term in itself. Even if you argue that, because en.wikipedia is English-language, an "in popular culture" section by default must be referring to English-speaking culture, the fact remains that we're not including the cultures of India, South Africa, Jamaica, St. Lucia, Fiji, New Zealand, or other English-speaking countries.
  • Similar to the above: if we can have an "in popular culture" section, why shouldn't we also have an "in gay culture" section, an "in Afro-American culture" section, an "in 18th-century Irish culture" section, an "in modern Russian satanist culture" section, an "in contemporary fark.com message boards" section, and so on?
  • "In popular culture" sections usually end up as lists with no informational value, which don't contribute to the article except perhaps as lists of examples.
  • "In popular culture" sections are almost never footnoted. I seem to be a real nut for footnotes compared to the average editor, but I still feel the original intent of Wikipedia is to only contain information verifiable from third-party sources and not original research. I'd bet that Snuffleupagus has been discussed in third-party articles, where the treatment of "imaginary friends" is discussed; but I doubt anyone's written about Lisa Simpson's "imaginary jewish friend". The latter is therefore "original research" - the editor who put that in must have made the decision on his/her own that Lisa Simpson's friend is imaginary. I know that might sound pedantic, but like I said, I'm a nut for WP:OR, and it was originally a rule here.
  • "In popular culture" sections get filled with "examples" that only tangentially have anything at all to do with the article. I don't know about this particular list right now, but often someone will put in something along the lines of "in the video game Jupiter Lander, one character on level 6 has an imaginary friend." I found this problem in the "in popular culture" section of the article Gaia hypothesis a month ago - instead of references to James Lovelock's specific hypothesis as it relates to ecology, there were references to "thinking planets in science fiction", which had nothing at all to do with the article.
  • "In popular culture" sections are often targets of spam. E.g., if there was some completely non-notable band called The Imaginary Friends that was in the process of spamming Wikipedia, they would add themselves to this "in popular culture" list. And then put a link to their myspace page in the "external references".

Anyway, just trying to persuade you that perhaps "in popular culture" articles don't always deserve a free pass. At the very least, they always need severe pruning: not always deletion, but also not a complete restore. I'm just trying to change one mind at a time.... AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image Copyright problem
Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Leaf-picture.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Polly (Parrot) 20:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I have updated it -- Q Chris (talk) 22:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Occam's hysterics

Just wondering what you found so funny about my mention of Occam's razor? Dismas|(talk) 12:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on User talk:Dismas -- Q Chris (talk) 14:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I get it now. I thought I had used the wrong theory or something... I can definitely see the humor in it now.  :-) Dismas|(talk) 21:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"single movement"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Program_music#Symphonic_poems68.148.164.166 (talk) 10:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philistines

I realise that you are right Sir. Mea Culpa! 86.29.205.163 (talk) 07:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Defamatory sentence in Hinduism Article

Following sentence id defamatory and malicious in nature. "Historically, Hinduism in the wider sense includes Brahmanism, religions that evolved from or are based on Vedism in ancient India; in a narrower sense, it encompasses the post-Buddhist religious and cultural traditions of India.[4] Among its roots is the historical Vedic religion of Iron Age India.[5]"

This sentence does not make logical sense either. First there is no such thing a Brahmanism, Word Brahmanism is a slur used by Christian evangelists for Hinduism because they try to project Hinduism as a religion of Brahmins and not the rest of the Hindu society. Similarly Vedism is also an invented word and does not make sense. Second sentense "post-Buddhist religious and cultural traditions " is even more ridiculous, since it implies that there was change in cultural traditions in india after the buddhism. I recommend removing the whole sentence as it is based on invented words like Brahmanism and Vedism with malicious intent. Some users had provided a reference to Brittanica to justify the inclusion. On investigation I found that there is no such reference in britannica. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sindhian (talk • contribs) 08:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your response at the ref desk may confuse the original questioner

From reading the above definitions I would say it is always effective but only nominal if the interest period is annual (once a year).

I was wondering if I could have your permission to change this. Its the other way around. I am not a regular person over at the ref-desk, so you can maybe help me on this question. If I want to help fix a mistake, do I go to the user's talk page and ask permission? and then await response (which the original asker may have already read the incorrect statement while the person in my situation is awaiting response from someone's talkpage)?

I have reviewed wikipedia:Reference_desk/Guidelines#Guidelines_for_responding_to_questions but its not there. The alternative is to tell the original poster on their talk page, that someone's response is inaccurate, but that seems like flaming. If I were editing an article, I could delete the innacurate part, and replace it, and cite the source. Thanks for your help. Sentriclecub (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please go ahead and correct it. I will be interested in your explanation because after reading the references I thought my interpretation was correct. -- Q Chris (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that its clear that different sources will tell you different ways to calculate APR. The honest problem with finance textbooks, is that they skirt calculus. I'd speculate that less than 5% of college kids who graduate with a degree in finance know how to work through the calculus derivation. But I could write 3 pages on that. The problem is that APR is defined by the government. The government is a bureaucracy. If APR had only one definition, then the treasury department would have to cut 10 jobs. When a bureaucracy shrinks, it threatens people nearer the center. That's why they create all these distal jobs, like APR disambiguation assistant so that those higher up in the bureaucracy have a larger buffer. Here's an official APR calculator from the government's homepage. http://www.occ.treas.gov/aprwin.htm Sentriclecub (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What references did you read? Hopefully you're not referencing the article, which has the template at the top for being uncited. I'll look into it, if you tell me where your references are at. This is a niche of wikipedia that I have the technical knowledge, and fine college textbooks published within 3 years, to make a powerful sweep, and make all articles consistent on APR. Sentriclecub (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Functional specification

Hi, I have answered your question on Talk:Functional specification. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 10:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Chandrayaan.jpg)

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Chandrayaan.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? —Angr 20:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indian English

Indians do use the title 'Doctor' while addressing anyone holding a Phd, you made a query about this in 'Talk:Indian English' back in February.However being a priest kind of supersedes that as 'priest' would be more popularly known and also held in higher regard than being Doctor.That should explains the experience you had. Manquer (talk) 06:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Bot

When {{unsigned}} is left default the bot gets confused and substitutes it even though there's no content. Unfortunately this was after I implemented a safeguard to stop this from happening. Thanks for spotting that though! :) Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 23:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ay'up

You called me by a funny name today, two edge sword. What's that? (Over on the BNP article that is) Refreshments (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prayer

Thanks for your concern about prayer in Hinduism. As I am looking to bring the article to GA status, I need to find reliable sources about Hinduism with regard to prayer in it. Can you point me in the right direction? -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 17:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Lucille

Hi, I have found your usernames on articles related to advaita. I need your help and suggestion. I am trying to add an article on one of the Living spiritual teacher. but,I am facing an problem.

The editors who have visited this page don't understand spirituality and they have tagged it for deletion. i need your help urgently. so they are trying to compare it with other biographies in the field of sports etc. As you know,the field the spirituality is not very commercial. so I am having a hard time convincing them. could you please help and and take a look at article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Lucille http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Francis_Lucille.

Appreciate all your help.


Thanks Amarhindustani (talk)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Q_Chris&oldid=278226377"