User talk:Qrc
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Seven forms of lightsaber combat
Hello Qrc and welcome to Wikipedia! There is a discussion taking place on VfD regarding the Seven forms of lightsaber combat article which you initiated last month. Your feedback would be appreciated on how this content may be encyclopedic and why it should be included! --GRider\talk 21:33, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Oh, thank you for pointing this out to me. I've replied. --qrc 03:05, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Invite to Star Wars Wiki
This may be a little early considering you've just joined Wikipedia, but seeing how you are affiliated with Star Wars as a topic, I wonder if you would be interested in contributing Star Wars information for the new Star Wars Wiki aka Wookieepedia? -- Riffsyphon1024 06:37, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for the invite! I recently registered; I'll look around to see what I can add. --qrc 21:53, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Spelling
Regarding your comment that American is "the spelling mainly associated with English Wikipedia." According to the manual of style, "For the English Wikipedia, there is no preference among the major national varieties of English." This being said, I was wrong to switch the spelling throughout the article. If it were a Commonwealth article, it would be Lightsabre combat. My bad on this one, but keep in mind you will find many cases of legitimate British and Canadian spelling throughout the Wiki. -Drhaggis 18:08, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, thank you. And now I know more :) —qrc 19:18, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Why remove the Assfighting discussion?
Not trolling, or anything, so hear me out. In my opinion, its just as valid a "move" as any other fictional form on that page. And, unlike most of them, it can be demonstrated with a vanilla Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast install. Was it the wording of the article? That is what we called it - "Assfighting". I guess you'd have to see it to understand why it was called that.
- It would be easier for me to contact you if you had a Wikipedia account, but... Well, your discussion topic seemed like an obvious joke. It lacked the seriousness of a usual discussion. Besides, even if I were to keep it there, it would never get placed in the article anyway: "Assfighting" is original research, and plus it's from a game. I play that game (played, now on the Jedi Academy), and saw that what you said was true (and hated the losers who used it), but it's not any type of combat seen canonically in films. —qrc 01:20, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] a democracy is one form of republic
summary of your New Republic (Star Wars) edit:
- fixed wording so that it doesn't sound like it's a democracy -- because it's a republic)
"republic" broadly describes a general method of government. a democratic principle is a republican one; "republican" describes any government whose power rests in a non-absolute leader and in its citizens, while "democratic" implies a rule of the majority. "republic's" etymology underscores its democratic meaning: res publica means rule of the people. a republic need not be a democracy, but a democracy is always categorized as a republican form of government.
the US for example is a representative democracy. its citizens vote for president while being represented by electors in the electoral college. this constitutes a republic, because its leader is not absolute (checks and balances) and the citizens participate in self-rule. it's a democracy because it's effectively a citizen-majority voting system. User:Xmnemonic P.S. realize that direct democracy is another type of democracy, which is also a type of republic.
[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:OrlandoCole.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:OrlandoCole.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] OpenHuman - Notability
A tag has been placed on OpenHuman, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable (see the guidelines for notability here). If you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.
Please read the criteria for speedy deletion (specifically, article #7) and our general biography criteria. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.
Your own summary stated this website is new. It does not satisfy notability guidelines. RichMac 04:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] A True Church criticism
I saw that you added A True Church's criticism to a number of pages. In most (if not all) of these cases, I think this is inappropriate and should be deleted per WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. --Flex (talk|contribs) 02:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Let's consolidate talk here. You wrote on my talk page:
- I started adding the criticisms to counter the "linkless" template at the top of the A True Church page. Also, in many of the cases, the criticisms offered by the A True Church group seem to be the only criticisms being represented at all, with the only exceptions being articles like Billy Graham. If A True Church offers the only criticism, then why not provide it to balance the article? --qrc 02:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Also, checking your mission statement, you said that you believe both in creating fair and balanced articles and in not giving articles undue weight. So the question, then, is, Which is more important, balance or weight? --qrc 02:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
First, I see that A True Church has now been deleted. That seems to add weight to my case -- viz. that ATC's criticisms are from a tiny minority group and should generally not be listed per WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. In particular, note that "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" (emphasis mine). I think that is most certainly the case here. There is plenty of criticism out there about Charles Spurgeon, etc. from non-tiny minorities, so I think we should work on including that rather than implicitly giving emphasis to ATC's view that so-and-so is a false teacher. The criticism sections should generally be more substantive and highlight significant points of criticism. For some examples of what I consider better use of criticism in articles about Christian ministers, compare R. C. Sproul, Jr. and Douglas Wilson (theologian). --Flex (talk|contribs) 14:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] A True Church nominated for deletion
A tag has been placed on A True Church , requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on 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 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. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
