User talk:Q Chris

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Acegi Security[edit]

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)


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)

List of bradfordians[edit]

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)

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


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)


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

Thanks yes!

Vegetarianism in Americas[edit]

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)

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

Your recent edits[edit]

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 Button sig.png 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)



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)

Poverty in India Image[edit]

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)

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)

Restoring "from popular culture" section in article Imaginary friend[edit]

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 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)

Image copyright problem with Image:Leaf-picture.jpg[edit]

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)

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

Occam's hysterics[edit]

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

Answered on User talk:Dismas -- Q Chris (talk) 14:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
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)

"single movement"[edit] (talk) 10:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


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

Defamatory sentence in Hinduism Article[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 08:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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)

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)
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. Sentriclecub (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
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)

Functional specification[edit]

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

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


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)

Indian English[edit]

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)

RE: Bot[edit]

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)


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)


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 -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 17:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Francis Lucille[edit]

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.

Appreciate all your help.

Thanks Amarhindustani (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC).


Hi Chris, I changed the Sikh section in accordance with the existing refrences, i.e. what the refrences stated. There is no division as such on this topic, because the official Code of Conduct (Rehat Maryada), does not forbid meat. The divisions come from groups who do not believe in the Sikh Code of Conduct. Best Wishes.--Sikh-history (talk) 09:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, it may have been me who added the references and then someone edited the text to a different meaning. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 14:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


I don't quite understand why I'm getting this message, but reading the article shows dozens of press references. David.Monniaux (talk) 08:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


It will be interesting to see you prove that Muhammadanism does not allow slavery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


Please join the talk page. "Of the reincarnation type" is a phrase in the title of one of his books. Regards, Mitsube (talk) 09:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


Would you please join the talk page? There is an involved, ongoing discussion. By the way, "of the reincarnation type" is a phrase in the title of one of his books. Regards, Mitsube (talk) 09:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


Goodness [5]! Had you really chosen the exact same wording? (Anyways, sorry for edit-conflicting you. I know how annoying that can be at the desks ;) ---Sluzzelin talk 11:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Q Chris. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-07-29/Hinduism.
Message added 16:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Merger with Animal sacrifice proposed[edit]

I have recommened the article Bali (sacrifice) to be merged with Animal sacrifice. The reason is that there is already a general article on the theme to which Hindu and Sikh animal sacrifices can be added as sub topics. I think this new article needlessly duplicates a topic. What is next? Are we going to have separate articles for animal sacrifice in each tradition? There are thousands of creeds which practiced animals sacrifice with various theological inspirations. To dedicate a separate article for each is bit of an overkill, imho. Kindly weigh in with your opinions. Thanks.--History Sleuth (talk) 12:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually such article already exist for example on Islamic animal sacrifice and Jewish. Thanks--Sikh-History 13:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "SCOracle"[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

A page you created, SCOracle, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it has no content, other than external links, categories, "see also" sections, rephrasing of the title, and/or chat-like comments.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. L Kensington (talkcontribs) 17:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Your edits with WikiCleaner[edit]

Thanks. :) Yeah I just made a wrong choice. I'll see what I can clean up. --User:Woohookitty Disamming fool! 16:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Bigoted edits[edit]

In response to your comment, the most obvious complaint on your talk page refers to your use of the pejorative "Brahmanism". I'm not really interested in how many articles on Wikipedia use the bigoted term "Islamist" - the popular use of the term does not erase its well-documented inherent anti-Muslim connotations, and all of the pages you cited violate the rules of civil discussion. I recommend reading Lacan and considering the nature of your irrational fear of the 'other' before you decide to spew more ethnocentric nonsense. Tkircher (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You are an idiot. Someone was telling me about the article so that I could help fix it. Also "Islamist" is the term for a follower of Islamism, used in Wikipedia, on the BBC and in many articles. Perhaps you could tell me in what way I am being ethnocentric and what ethnicity I am centering on. -- Q Chris (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
In the example you left on my talk page, you compare 'extremist fundamentalist Christian' to 'Christian' - which is actually a good example, because instead of writing 'extremist fundamentalist Christian' someone intending to be offensive might write 'Christianist' instead, and indeed this exact thing has been done. And it is offensive. If you mean 'extremist fundamentalist Muslim', why not write that? The terms 'Islamist' and 'Islamism' effectively paint Islam as an extremist fundamentalist ideology, along with all of its followers, and that just isn't the case. Tkircher (talk) 08:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Islamism and Islamist are well recognised term for political radical muslims. It is used on the BBC, the New York Times as well as extensively in Wikipedia, as I pointed out before in [Islamism]], Political aspects of Islam, Justice and Development Party (Turkey), Al-Shabaab, Kurdistan Islamist Conflict, Qutbism, Caliphate, Iranian Revolution, Ed Husain, Islam and democracy, Abu Sayyaf, History of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Hamas, Istishhad, Algerian Civil War, Islam, Anjem Choudary, Middle East Forum, Movement of Society for Peace, Walid al-Kubaisi, and many other pages. There is no need to avoid a generally accepted academic term just because you personally have some issue with it or don't understand it.
Also, since you choose to libel me please explain in what way you think my posts are bigoted, particularly the ones on Hinduism, for which I have been awarded a Barnstar. -- Q Chris (talk) 09:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
If you refuse to see the problem, then this conversation is over. Tkircher (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that you make defamatory statements saying I have made bigoted edits and "spewing ethnocentric nonsense" when in fact you wanted to say that Muslims use the term Kaffir as an insult against non Muslims rather than only Islamists. -- Q Chris (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


Hi Chris.

Please remember that 3rr applies even when you are in the right.--Charles (talk) 08:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

OK what should I do?

This guy refuses to discuss things and has just reverted it again. I know that you are supposed not to revert 3 times but when it leaves something obviously wrong on the site what should you do? -- Q Chris (talk) 08:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I have [ reported the boy at the edit war noticeboard, so it will be dealt with quite quickly I expect.--Charles (talk) 08:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Just butting in with some advice. Re Add warning - the paragraph needs to be removed but to do so now would contravile WP:3RR - you're too late. You already have 4R on that page today at least, and probably more within 24h, I didn't check.

But more: you haven't really tried to talk to User:Bradford Guitar Boy, who is a newbie, and unlikely to respond well to a template. Also (Charles) you ought to tell him you've reported him for 3RR William M. Connolley (talk) 11:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Charles has told him on both User talk:Bradford Guitar Boy and Talk:Bradford. I made it clear on the talk page and many edit comments that he was adding to the wrong article, which he ignored. Also, yes I have broken WP:3RR but Charles advised me to stop now. If this is bad advice I will remove the paragraph again. -- Q Chris (talk)
BGB is a newbie. He probably doesn't know that the talk page exists. Quite likely he doesn't know about your edit comments. Charles has, as I said, left him a template. That isn't a helpful way to *talk* to people. If this is bad advice I will remove the paragraph again - reverting again would be a really bad idea William M. Connolley (talk) 12:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
There are a number of regular editors on Bradford who will most likely remove it. If a big loud warning template containing helpful links did not get any response I doubt whether a friendly word of warning would have done, but we will see.--Charles (talk) 12:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

WCI 2011[edit]

Hiya, Im currently helping out with WikiConference India 2011 [6] (first such a national annual Wiki event in India). Just wondering if you can spare time to help out with the programming Team. Cheers, Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 08:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit on OM[edit]

Hello I undid your "undo" of my edit. I gave an appropriate comment over there but then realized made a lot of typos :) Here is what I wanted to state. Its not the question of who is better - Brahman or Brahma. The text that I edited is supposed to be the translation of the verse in footnote 5. The phrase "Brahma loke" in that footnote translates to "the world of Brahma" & not Brahman --Vignesh aka Mr.Falcon Sep 22, 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 18:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC).

Received Pronunciation[edit]

Let me know directly if the edit warring continues by the user who is editing from multiple IPs, and I'll semi protect the page fro a short while. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Q Chris. I think that you might've got a tad confused on the subject of "BBC English". The part that you altered had the following reference:

English Pronouncing Dictionary, edited by Peter Roach, page v, Cambridge University Press, 2006

If you look this up, you'll find Roach's explanation for why he abandoned the term RP in favour of BBC English. He is describing exactly the same thing as before, so it belongs in the same article, but it's worth noting the change in name. There have always been a few linguists who dislike the name even if they use the concept. Hope that makes sense. Epa101 (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey[edit]

Peace dove.svg

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Q Chris. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Editors Barnstar Hires.png The Editor's Barnstar
Congratulations, Q Chris, you've recently made your 1,000th edit to articles on English Wikipedia!

Thanks for helping improve Hinduism-related content, and for answering questions at the Reference desk! Keep up the great work :) Maryana (WMF) (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, i'll move it to my user page -- Q Chris (talk) 11:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

City of Bradford[edit]

Hi, can you take another look at your last edit to City of Bradford article. The first sentence does not make sense as it is, I guess you mean western parts of the City of Bradford. Keith D (talk) 12:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Bhagavad Gita Talk page[edit]

Please see the Bhagavad Gita talk page as soon as you can. BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Bradford and IPA for English[edit]

I hate to do a back and forth reverts with clipped edit summaries, so I'm coming here, per our disagreement at City of Bradford about how to transcribe the city's name. I'm having some trouble accepting that you do indeed understand how Wikipedia's IPA transcription system works. It is diaphonemic, meaning that it encodes for multiple varieties, particularly Received Pronunciation and General American. The most striking difference between these two dialects is the presence of [r] after a vowel: in RP, /r/ is not pronounced and in GA it is. Because we want all dialects to be derivable from our transcriptions, we put in the /r/ and ask non-rhotic speakers to simply ignore them. There are other mergers present in the transcription system, and the idea is to have one transcription system that is consistently applied and that is neutral to differences in dialect.

Maybe you understand this and there's something else going on in your editing behavior at City of Bradford. If you are saying that even rhotic speakers don't pronounce the r in Bradford, I can assure you that this is incorrect. You can see this at, for example, this dictionary entry. Thus, your claim in this edit summary that it is "not pronounced like the sound in perform" is incorrect. If, as it seems in this edit summary, where you appeal to how the locals pronounce the name, that you wish to not have the dialect-neutral transcription in this article, then you would need to take it up at WT:IPA for English, the appropriate place for discussion on how and when we use the dialect-neutral transcripton. As it stands now, our policy is to use the dialect-neutral transcription system. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 18:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

No what I am saying is that it is not pronounced like the word "ford", but similarly to the RP word "mud", but with the "u" greatly reduced, which is the shwa ə. Many place names in the UK are not pronounced as the spelling would imply (Towcester, Scarborough, etc.) -- Q Chris (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I think I see the issue. The example perform at WP:IPA for English is referring to the first (unstressed) syllable, not the second one. That's why the first syllable is in bold. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 21:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
OK I see now, bold does not show very well on my laptop screen. I was assuming that you thought it was pronounced as I have heard some Americans pronounce it as Brad-ford but I can see now that this would be 'ɔr'. -- Q Chris (talk) 06:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I've changed the example at WP:IPA for English. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 12:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I am not certain about your change - see talk section of "IPA for English". -- Q Chris (talk) 13:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

the Mozzie revertion[edit]

I changed the page Mozzie from a disambiguation page to a redirection because except for the White Collar character, none of the pages listed had any mention of the word "mozzie" in them at all. As the page stands, it's effectively saying "this word means these things" without any verification at the articles to back it up. That's why I redirected it. Why do you think it's more useful to claim unverified things as the page stands now? — fourthords | =Λ= | 22:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The point of a redirection page is to redirect people to a page they are looking for. These include mis-spellings, common nicknames, etc, that don't necessarily have to appear in the article. A lot of these terms are well used, for example the de Havilland Mosquito, MozzIE the plugin for IE, and it is easy to find examples of the derogatory use towards Muslims[7] [8]. In some circumstances it might be appropriate to add the slang terms to the articles, but this is not necessary for the use of a redirect page and in some cases is clearly inappropriate. -- Q Chris (talk) 09:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Ref Desk Q was removed[edit]

I see it was removed for requiring speculation. So, I will reply here instead:

The problem is other Muslim nations being quite willing to give the Palestinian weapons, but having very little interest in actually improving their lives. Why weren't Syria, Iran, and Iraq (under Saddam) building schools for Palestinian children, rather than sending them weapons ? Because they'd rather push the Palestinians to fight, IMHO. StuRat (talk) 10:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: High-efficiency hybrid cycle[edit]

Hello Q Chris. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of High-efficiency hybrid cycle, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: doesn't seem too spammy to me. also appears to be notable. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 19:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Wiki language[edit]

Hey, I don't usually like editing other peoples comments, but I just changed your html to a wikilink on the Reference Desk here so that your link shows as a link and not as a bunch of text. Just wanted to let you know. Thanks! uhhlive (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd just like to thank you and the other editor of Help:IPA for English for imparting a bit of knowledge about rhoticisation of vowels, which I did not know existed before. I am sorry for using the term 'colour' probably referring to an old secondary school text 20 years out of date.Adam37 (talk) 13:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Roedy Green for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Roedy Green is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roedy Green (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I have cut and pasted the above notice from User talk:Chris Q, which I notice is an abandoned account. You may wish to redirect that old talk page here, so that you receive further automated messages. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Scoracle.png listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Scoracle.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly hi! 23:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Freedom of speech[edit]

Hey, I saw you reverted my edit on Freedom of Speech, the statement he was harassed by adherents of another culture which is intolerant of criticism is not neutral irrespective of any reference. I have reverted your edit, if you still have an issue. You can discuss it on the article talk page. ow@!s (talk) 13:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


Hi there, I think you may have misunderstood my logo placement on the Bradford page, someone else moved the Bradford coat of arms to the info box on that page, I simply replaced it in the Government section with the ILP logo, there has been no deletion as far as I can see.Bradford4life (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry you're right I looked at the difference and it looked like you were deleting it! I don't know how I mixed that up -- Q Chris (talk) 10:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Incomplete or misleading description of Advaita[edit]

Dear Q Chris, Your input and contribution to Wikipedia is commendable. My compliments. However, I feel that the chapter on Advaita cannot be complete without adding later important philosophies such as Vishishtadvaita, Dvaitadvaita and Shuddhadvaita, whose proponents were Ramanujacharya, Nimbarkacharya and Vallabhacharya respectively. Surprisingly, on an addition by me on Shuddhadvaita you have commented "We just want the main philosopheis, if this why not Vishishtadvaita, Dvaitādvaita, Achintya Bhedābheda vāda, etc.)" and removed the addition. It is not understood what you think are the "main philosophies", as the others which you think are not "main philosophies" are in fact, well recognised. For example Shuddhadvaita was established after discussions over 28 days at the court of King Krishnadevaraya who reigned the Vijayanagara Empire from 1509–1530, in which represenatives from all the Advaita and Dvaita sects were present. I think you should rethink and add the other Advaita philosophies which are equally important. कनाश (talk) 13:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)