User talk:Virogtheconq/OldStuff1

Welcome!

Hello, Virogtheconq/OldStuff1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Alhutch 06:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

How are the official sites for Mortal Kombat Deception and Mortal Kombat Shaolin Monks "not relevant to series as a whole" under the Mortal Kombat Official Sites section? I'm putting them back because, one, they are official Mortal Kombat sites, and two, they are relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuzzd0rk (talk • contribs)

They aren't relevant to the series as a whole because those sites don't cover the Mortal Kombat series, just the individual games. The links should go on the articles for those games, not the series' page. EVula 15:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Hey, sorry it took so long for me to replay to the message. I know what you mean, Wikipedia can get really disheartening at times with all the psychotic editing. But I'm confident that by the time we're through, we'll have made the MK pages accurate enough that they require little editing (although I know that won't stop POV posts). Shadaloo 21:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, yeah I know. It's just that I'm trying to get the size of the MK:SM Liu Kang render for his character page right, as you can see I'm failing miserably. If you have any suggestions on what to do or if you could fix it for me. Either would be great. Thanks!PNF 00:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Proud Nintendo fan[reply]

uh ya i dont mean to bug you just wanted to tell you that was toothy in a splendid costum not splendid. sorry to have to leave a comment my messaging isnt working. deraj april 2nd 2006

I try...

I try to do as you advised, but I made some mistakes the first time around and I can't help but go back and fix them... (I'm having a problem with Jade and making "Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3" fit onto one line, don't know why it isn't) PNF 04:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)Proud Nintendo fan[reply]

Character pictures from all games

Hi, I noticed you got Sonya Blade down, but what other characters are you working on at the current moment? I'm just interested, that's all. Thank you. PNF 23:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Proud Nintendo Fan[reply]

Actually, someone else did most of that - I just cleaned up the page a lot. I'm not currently working on any characters, though I have a ton of stock images to use (mostly character endings from the games up to UMK3). Virogtheconq

Ah, I've been wondering if someone is doing that for all the characters, hopefully anyway. Thanks for letting me know, though. PNF 01:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Proud Nintendo Fan[reply]

What duplicate info?

I put in all the characters who were in the game, I felt it was necessary. What did you get rid of them? PNF 05:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Proud Nintendo Fan[reply]

If you're talking about the UMK3 character bios/endings, I just removed the ones that also were in MK3, since technically UMK3 is a remake. Virogtheconq

Yeah, but the MK3 characters were in UMK3 as well, so I felt they needed to be on there too to avoid confusion or really for a sense of completion. Also some endings in MKT are different. (Like Mileena's MKT ending being different from her UMK3 ending.) So why not? PNF 19:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Proud Nintendo Fan[reply]

Well, I put a disclaimer at the top of the section stating that the original MK3 character endings were on that page. I checked all the ones I removed to make sure they hadn't changed (which is why I left Human Smoke, but took out Robot Smoke). I just felt that having all that duplicate information was unnecessary and cluttering up the page. Since UMK3 is a remake, most of the information on the page should deal with the differences/improvement to vanilla MK3. As far as MKT goes, I haven't done anything to that page yet, but if a character had a different MKT ending than UMK3, I'd have left it in. Virogtheconq 23:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just thought it would be good for a sense of completetion is all.PNF 00:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)Proud Nintendo Fan[reply]

If you want to put them back in, go ahead. It doesn't really matter to me all that much. Virogtheconq

Why did you delete my question?

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mortal_Kombat&oldid=48982681
It seemed like a valid question to me. SilentRage 16:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for clearing that up. SilentRage 00:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Area 88 cleanup

I don't disagree with the notion the aircraft list could use some cleanup, but did you have a specific reason in mind for tagging it as such? It'd be great if you could clarify that on the talk page so editors have something to start with. Virogtheconq 23:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I just added an explaination to the talk page. Elvrum 00:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mortal Kombat: Taven

Okay, I see. I hate vandals...with powerful, seething hatred. Anyway, thanks for clearing that up for me.--WatchHawk 03:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meat as a character

I agree he was just a skin, but he did get a name later right & was mentioned to be in MKA recently correct? so there for hes a character now, regardless if he didn't have a name or story, and for MKSM, the Bloody Skeletons where pretty much him, but then again there was no proof of that, so there for i appreciate your deletion of the veiw marked sections. ~~Lil'Layzie-One

False Accusations

I didn't vandalize anything. Here is a quote from Wiki: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." What I did was in good faith and not vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mabus Kombatant (talk • contribs)

Adding an image of Ben Stiller to Quan Chi is hardly a good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia. EVula 22:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is how Wiki defines good faith: Good faith, or in Latin bona fides, is the mental and moral state of honesty, conviction as to the truth or falsehood of a proposition or body of opinion, or as to the rectitude or depravity of a line of conduct, even if the conviction is objectively unfounded. This concept is important in law.

My friend told me that Ben Stiller played Quan Chi in one of the MK movies so that's why I added it. It was placed there in good faith.

I assume the same friend also told you that "lesbianism" is the fighting style Sonya uses, even though you easily could have verified the information first on a dozen different websites, or even actually playing the game.Virogtheconq 22:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't play the game but I thought he was telling the truth, thus it was not vandalism so don't act like I committed some crime. Evula has not responded at all, so apparently he has realized her wrongdoing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mabus Kombatant (talk • contribs)

Again, there's the whole "verification" thing. If you haven't played the games, then don't edit the articles - though if you think something should be included, there's always the Talk pages. That's all I have to say about this subject - you have your warning, I won't post any more comments about this here. Virogtheconq 23:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel comfortable deferring to Virogtheconq on this, as his argument is the same as mine. I will say that it is unfathomable that Che Guevarra is Shinnok's fighting style (or that his race is "Flamer"),[1] and that an image of Richard Simmons and Sweatin' to the Oldies has anything to do with Kung Lao.[2] EVula 03:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Triming the MK infobox

I'm pushing for some of the fields in the MK character template to be removed. Since I've had numerous positive dealings with you on MK articles in the past, I'd really appreciate your feedback before I just up and do it, though; drop a line at Template talk:Mortal Kombat character#Removing fields if you could. Danke. EVula 20:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merging MK GBA ports with original versions

Hi. I'd like to merge the articles of Mortal Kombat GBA ports (MKA and MK:TE) into the articles of the original games (UMK3 and MK:DA). I've started a discussion here. If you have a view on this, I'd appreciate your input. Thanks. RobWill80 15:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MK image feedback requested

I've submitted a logo for the Mortal Kombat WikiProject. As an active member of the project, I just wanted to drop you a line so I can get your feedback over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mortal Kombat#WikiProject Mortal Kombat Logo. Thanks! :) EVula 05:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry to correct u

sorry to correct you, Mr. Person, but when u said sub-zero was in original MK3, you were probably thinking of ultimate MK3 which had kitana, mileena, sub-zero, scorpion, and ERMAC (awesome dude).

Nope. Sub-Zero was in the first version of MK3 as a playable character. See MK3.

oh, thanks. i didnt see him in the demo that i have.

AFD

The "current" day log starts at 00.00 UTC rather than local time, and the AFD instructions should direct you to the correct day (this is from the comments in the page: " When you nominate a page for deletion, it gets an entry in a sub-sub-page corresponding to the (UTC) date of nomination"). I only move those entries that are on the "wrong" page as they are more likely to get a good response if they are the first entries on the new date rather than the last entries on the old date, which may save them having to be relisted later. I hope I didn't cause any offense - that wasn't my intention. Cheers, Yomangani ^talk 09:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mortal Kombat characters height

I want to add the heights and weights again, but I can't there is something wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lieutenant Dol Grenn (talk • contribs)

Replied on talk page. Virogtheconq 00:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Early Christian Cults

You asked a question on the Humanities section of the Reference Desk: "were there cults that principally worshipped the other aspects of the Trinity and didn't focus (as much) on Jesus himself?"

The knee-jerk reaction from the responders was in the negative. The actual answer is "yes," but it's more complicated than that. I decided to answer here to avoid adverse reactions from uninformed true believers on the Reference Desk.

The reality is that Christianity developed out of a fusion of a number of 1st and 2nd century ideas and beliefs. We can see echoes of this situation already in Paul's epistles in the 40s and 50s.

"I have been told . . . that there is quarrelling among you . . . that each of you is saying: 'I am for Paul,' or 'I am for Apollos,' or 'I follow Cephas' or 'I Christ'." (1 Cor. 1:11-12)

Four different sects of Christians in one town a dozen years after the crucifiction? If the beginnings of Christianity were really as stated by the Gospels and the Book of Acts, this would be impossible. Note, too, the vituperation of the author of 1 John about the schismatics in his own church. Notice, also, how the the Epistle of James contradicts (and, IMO, refutes) Paul's "faith alone" doctrine.

Trinitarian ideas were a late addition to Christian dogma, accepted at the Nicean Council, literally after a brawl in which the Trinitarians led by Atheneus physically beat up the Unitarians led by the aged Arius. Emperor Constantine, who chaired the conference, although he was at the time a pagan, ruled in favor of the former just to restore order (see Gibbon , The Decline and Fall ...). The gospels certainly present a picture of the Son being subservient to the Father.

The various threads that were woven together to form mainstream Christianity included -

Judaism. Strictly monotheistic, thus "Father only" in terms of your question. However, there are a couple of wrinkles to be considered. In the 1st century, with the Olympic pantheon played out, many pagans attached themselves to the synagogue. This was possible because Judaism does not insist "my way or the highway." The Johannine notion of "only through me" is counter to normal Jewish thinking which states that a righteous gentile stands on the same moral plane as a righteous Jewish High Priest. The "righteous gentile" obeys the commandments given to Noah: 1. Avoid Bloodshed, 2. Do Not Worship Idols, 3. Avoid Sexual Enormities (adultery/rape/incest), and 4. Do Not Eat Blood. (Note that, in different words, these are the instructions that James gives to Paul for gentile Christians at the Jerusalem Conference.) Now these "outer circle" gentiles tended not to be as strict as Jews about monotheism, having come from a polytheistic background. Note, too, that the Bible uses various terms for the diety, including, God, the Lord, the Almighty, the Eternal, the Spirit of God, and Wisdom of God (the last two, BTW, being grammatically female terms in Hebrew). Now the Greeks, if they could conceive of a concept, immediately invented a god/godlet/muse to embody it, thus "Mnemosyne" (memory), "Dike" (righteousness), "Nike" (victory), "Psyche" (soul), etc, etc. It would not be surprising for such folk to fixate upon one of these as their personal "guardian angel."
Platonism. With his notion of a "real" plane of Ideals, and our own imitation plane of Appearances, he posits an uncrossable gulf between Heaven and Earth. His God is transcendent - essentially uninterested and useless. However, once upon a time He did manage to bestir Himself enough to burp out the Logos ("Word"). It is this subsidiary Logos who actually accomplishes the creation of the universe and continues to run things. Much of Early Christianity (see the Gospel of John) is actually Logos religion. Philo Judaeus identifies the Platonic Logos with the Jewish mythologic personified "Wisdom."
Gnosticism. From time to time a Heavenly Messenger flops down to earth to impart secret knowledge to the initiates. Most of what he has to say is mystical goobledygook (see the Gospel of Thomas). This secret knowledge enables cult members to escape from the horrors of mundane existance and become one with the ineffable. (Nowadays such folk are confined to mental institutions.) The Messenger, is sometimes referred to as "Wisdom's Child." Now if we read the gospels from a Trinatarian POV - although they weren't written that way - there's an interesting anomoly in Matthew. The only evangelist with an explicit Virgin Birth, states
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. (1:18)
Thus Jesus is not the son of the Father, but of the Holy Spirit: Wisdom's Child. Gnostics had never worshipped these holy messengers. But we can see an interesting process in the Gospel of John. Originally a gnostic work, a later editor merged in what is called "the Signs Gospel" to show Jesus performing miracles. (The gnostic messangers didn't do miracles, they just imparted knowledge.) And he prefaced the work with the "Hymn to the Logos" in Chapter 1. Later, someone slapped on Chapter 21 to make the gospel more like the synoptics, and thus more acceptable to mainline (Roman) Christianity. However, in this gospel, Jesus doesn't have much to say except for the great "I am" speeches (Bread of Life, Water of Life, Resurrection and Life, etc). Jesus' secret knowledge is all self-referential.
Mystery Cults. These sects featured the dying and reviving god. Initiates were guaranteed that just as the object of their veneration overcame death, so would they. The Eleusian Mysteries, the Dionysus cult, that of Osiris, Adonis, Tammuz (very popular in Tarsus), and especially Mithras, lead directly into Pauline doctrine. Note that Paul never even suggests that Jesus died "for sin" or anything else, only that he is the first to be resurrected and thus has opened a path for his followers. Paul acknowledges that there are other Christiam missionaries selling an entirely different message. He condemns them, but never denies that they are in fact Christians too.
For if someone comes who proclaims another Jesus, not the Jesus whom we proclaimed, or if you then receive a spirit different from the Spirit already given to you, or a gospel different from the gospel you have already accepted, you put up with that well enough. (2 Corinthians 11:4-6)
Whether they are the same men whom he condemns and curses for preaching a different gospel to the Galatians (1:6-9) is unknown.
The Kingdom of God movement. This community produced Q. Their Jesus was a teacher, not a god.

Returning now to your question - of the three persons in the Trinity, the answers are yes, yes, no.

God the Father was worshipped exclusively by many early Christians. Jesus as a gnostic-style messanger or as a super-prophet was not worshipped by such groups. The Epistle of James is from such a sect. There are nods toward Jesus, but it is God (the Father) who is worshipped. A similar attitude is held by the author of Hebrews. Jesus is the eternal High Priest of God (the Father).
Jesus worship developed out of Logos-worship. Given a transcendent Father, who isn't listening to you or doing much of anything, the Son becomes the active principle in the universe. Praying to a diety like the former is about as pointless as trying to have a conversation with a recorded message on a telephone. So one prays to Jesus who is a diety who understands and gives a damn.
Nobody worshipped the Holy Spirit. As mentioned before, Trinitarianism was a late development, so the Holy Spirit (= Spirit of God) remained just another way of talking about God and His transfer of "energy" to his worshippers. Having the Holy Spirit come upon one was just another way of saying that one was inspired. Over time, however, the third member of the Trinity was concretized. In part, there was a fusion with the Paraclete. The New Testament clearly indicates that the End of the World and Judgment Day are just around the corner. Paul, speaking of "we who are still alive," obviously expects to live to see it. By the mid-2nd century, the rank-and-file were getting more than a bit antsy. Jude and 2 Peter are attempts to soothe the restless. The later gospels, however, included (or were edited to include) references to a Comforter (the Paraclete) who would fill in for Jesus until the big show. Eventually, this shadowy figure was identified as the Holy Spirit, and promoted to membership in the Trinity. Since the notion of the Holy Spirit as a distinct "person" was formulated by the Trinitarians, the acknowledgement of such a being's existance meant that one was already buying into the Triune God. Thus there was no separate worship for the third member.

Long as this posting is, it is, obviously, just skimming these issues. Without being obligated to accept the author's POV, a good place to start in fact-gathering might be http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/century2.htm Read the whole thing to begin to get a feel for what the early scene was like. B00P 01:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be of service. B00P 06:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

The article Area 88, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup.

If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page.
You have been left this message by PocKleanBot, an automated process that notifies editors that articles to which they may have contributed on more than one occasion in the past now need cleanup. If you have any comments or object to this message being left, please leave a message on PocKleanBot's talk page.

Hammerspace

Thank you for your work on Hammerspace. It is one of the few recent edits in the right direction. I just made alot of edits on the article, but I plan on a major revamp which means cutting ALL bloat and weak examples that shouldn't be on there. Which means that I'm going to see alot of resistance from editors who ahve grown attached. And so I would like for you to either (a) work with me on the article or (b) voice your support for what I'm going to do. Blueaster 01:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join Stanford's WikiProject!

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Stanford University, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Stanford University. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

ralphamale (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]