Talk:QFT

"quoted for truth"

I've noticed that the history page for this article frequently omitts and re-admits the reference to this internet slang term. I do believe it's a fairly common term that, while not deserving of its own article, at least deserves a mention on this disambiguation page. If there is any debate as to whether it should be kept or removed, let it be discussed here before action is taken. Pele Merengue 17:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked up this very page to find out what someone meant when they said "QFT" in a post I read, and was happy to find the (correct) explanation here. It should definitely stay.--4.231.244.4 00:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the same boat, and it is nice to get a definition. 24.149.23.119 17:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. That's the definition I was looking for, and there's no good reason it shouldn't be here. Obdurodon 14:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it can be "Quoth for truth too" i added becouse it is a same but not self explainable ... NOT USER

can we stop documenting retarded internet acronyms on wikipedia, please (unsigned by 24.50.11.1 on 06-Feb-2007, attribution added by Obdurodon)

No. (unsigned by 24.149.23.119 on 09-Apr-2007, attribution added by Obdurodon)

Agreed, no. This isn't about attaching value judgements to the facts, it's about presenting them, and the fact is that the "retarded internet acronym" is one of the most common usages for this particular string of letters. Who gets to decide what's "retarded" anyway? Someone on some "retarded internet encyclopedia"? That's the way many view Wikipedia. How is that an unacceptable characterization while yours is not? Obdurodon 14:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok internet whatever you say —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.101.237 (talk) 19:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quality friend time? Now that is just made up.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.245.254 (talk) 07:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

agreed

(64.231.134.129 (talk) 23:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

the term "+1" has nothing to do with this.

I can make up loads of "pretty obvious" acronyms used "around the internet". All of these should either be cited (as in, shown to be widely used) or deleted.--87.162.10.97 (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only difference being multiple people have already agreed that it is used "around the internet", but loads of stuff you make up would be quickly disputed and put down. Also, this is sort of a necessary evil of Wikipedia; we must break the requirement of sourcing because you cannot source something commonly used, it is by definition impossible. Nikandros (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

in toto? what is that?

hhmmm..? 77.125.90.238 (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Common Words to describe an Acronym

While there may be may ways to include the 'F' word in common English, and the Wikipedia, is no exception to the 'Rules', some people use them quite frequently, others do not. So for brevity and not to trip the sensitivities of those who seek the answers to common questions, I have replaced the 'uc' in certain words with the '**' designation.

While it may offend some to put the '**', In my Opinion Only, IF those who are learning, then they should already know that there are certain words of the English language, and certain combinations that are frowned upon by our culture. these of course include George Carlin's famous seven words that cannot be said on Television in the USA, for fear of the regulator's (the US FCC) removal of permission of the Broadcaster to continue operations. [1]

Responsible-Richard-NQW (talk) 20:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored, so I've restored the correct spelling of the word 'fuck' to this page. While those famous seven words cannot be said on US television, all of them are the subjects of Wikipedia articles. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict, but I thought I might as well include my comment anyway.]

Clearly different people have very different views on this, but Wikipedia's policy is unambiguous: Wikipedia is not censored. No one of us has the right to unilaterally overturn this policy, no matter what our personal feelings on the issue. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stand Corrected. Alas, the words have the 'uc' restored. I could not find a reference to Wikipedia's Policy earlier. Responsible-Richard-NQW (talk)

No big deal; Wikipedia has lots of rules, and we were all new once. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]