User talk:Qqs83
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. IrishGuy talk 23:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Popular culture sections[edit]
Please do not add any more of these to Wikipedia. Minor references do nothing to help the articles. Pop culture articles are deleted all the time, as is the material contained in such sections.Mintrick (talk) 22:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- I had no idea that they are. May I ask why so? I don't wanna argue (I guess you're here longer than me), I'm just curious. I know that pop culture sections are not exactly as important as hard facts, but I believe they ARE interesting for people who like to know how these hard facts are changed into products of modern culture. I realise that usually means these facts are simplified or changed in the way that almost offends people with its stupidity. That's how the pop culture is, nevertheless - why it is seen bad to write about it? And if it's a matter of Wikipedia standards or something, where's the rule that forbids that? Best wishes.Qqs83 (talk) 22:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- It's not the subject that's unacceptable, it's the way it's done. There are some good popular culture articles and sections, but they're built from independent, secondary sources that actually write about how mythological or cultural figures have been perceived by modern culture. These are vastly outnumbered by "Appears in X" style lists, that do not accomplish that goal. If you're interested in writing about popular perception of myth and legend, that's a great, and I look forward to your contributions. But please, start with sociologists and secondary sources, not comics and movies. Mintrick (talk) 23:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your answer. You're right of course that these would be surely more valuable. However, I still can't understand what is wrong with "Appears in X" kind of things? They aren't as "professional" as you explain above. However, they are: 1) true, 2) some people MAY be interested in reading this, 3) nothing written there is in contradiction of any Wikipedia rules that I know of (they're not "original reasearch", they are not offensive to anyone etc.). Is anything MORE needed to leave these sections be? Aside of being poorly written sometimes (including some of mine, I'm affraid)? I believe that what differs Wikipedia from other encyclopedias is that it COULD provide a reader with not ONLY the most relevant informations about the subject. I understand that adding "Pop culture section" to articles about a-bomb or space exploration may distract. However, if the article itself is very short (or it's a stub), what's wrong with extending it by providing "Appears in X" information? Again: please don't take it personally, and please don't take it offensive - that's not my point to prove you wrong, or to defend my work for any cost. I'm really not gonna argue, it just troubles me and I'm really curious about your point of view. If you by chance see that kind of debate pointless, 'cause you've been through this a thousand of times before, perhaps you could at least direct me to some talk page or some place else where it is explained.Qqs83 (talk) 11:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- It may sound tremendously stuffy to say this, but just because something is interesting, that doesn't mean it's worth including. Indeed, being true does not mean, in and of itself, that something is suitable for Wikipedia (See WP:IINFO). What we are doing is here is writing an encyclopedic treatment of subjects. That can't be done with extensive hard and fast rules. It's impossible to write a general rule about what is important regarding a subject. However, I think it's clear that minor references just don't cut it, particularly with the benefit of my own perspective. I've seen more IPC bullet points than you can imagine. And I can assure you, they don't tell you anything about the subject in even 1% of the cases. Specifically, WP:WEIGHT prohibits giving an undue weight to facts that are not as important. By filling a mythological or cultural article with a long list of modern references (and trust me, it will become long, given time), you are giving an inaccurate portrayal of the subject, skewing modern far more than is justified (without independent sources to back up the significance of those portrayals, anyway).
To my point of view, this is a fundamental philosophical difference between an encyclopedia and, say, a search engine. The goal of an encyclopedia is to extract significant facts to give an understanding of the subject, while a search engine amalgamates nearly limitless data. From the perspective of one who intends to convey what is significant, there needs to be some filtering. And I simply do not see these lists as making that cut. Mintrick (talk) 14:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- It may sound tremendously stuffy to say this, but just because something is interesting, that doesn't mean it's worth including. Indeed, being true does not mean, in and of itself, that something is suitable for Wikipedia (See WP:IINFO). What we are doing is here is writing an encyclopedic treatment of subjects. That can't be done with extensive hard and fast rules. It's impossible to write a general rule about what is important regarding a subject. However, I think it's clear that minor references just don't cut it, particularly with the benefit of my own perspective. I've seen more IPC bullet points than you can imagine. And I can assure you, they don't tell you anything about the subject in even 1% of the cases. Specifically, WP:WEIGHT prohibits giving an undue weight to facts that are not as important. By filling a mythological or cultural article with a long list of modern references (and trust me, it will become long, given time), you are giving an inaccurate portrayal of the subject, skewing modern far more than is justified (without independent sources to back up the significance of those portrayals, anyway).
- Thanks for your answer. You're right of course that these would be surely more valuable. However, I still can't understand what is wrong with "Appears in X" kind of things? They aren't as "professional" as you explain above. However, they are: 1) true, 2) some people MAY be interested in reading this, 3) nothing written there is in contradiction of any Wikipedia rules that I know of (they're not "original reasearch", they are not offensive to anyone etc.). Is anything MORE needed to leave these sections be? Aside of being poorly written sometimes (including some of mine, I'm affraid)? I believe that what differs Wikipedia from other encyclopedias is that it COULD provide a reader with not ONLY the most relevant informations about the subject. I understand that adding "Pop culture section" to articles about a-bomb or space exploration may distract. However, if the article itself is very short (or it's a stub), what's wrong with extending it by providing "Appears in X" information? Again: please don't take it personally, and please don't take it offensive - that's not my point to prove you wrong, or to defend my work for any cost. I'm really not gonna argue, it just troubles me and I'm really curious about your point of view. If you by chance see that kind of debate pointless, 'cause you've been through this a thousand of times before, perhaps you could at least direct me to some talk page or some place else where it is explained.Qqs83 (talk) 11:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- It's not the subject that's unacceptable, it's the way it's done. There are some good popular culture articles and sections, but they're built from independent, secondary sources that actually write about how mythological or cultural figures have been perceived by modern culture. These are vastly outnumbered by "Appears in X" style lists, that do not accomplish that goal. If you're interested in writing about popular perception of myth and legend, that's a great, and I look forward to your contributions. But please, start with sociologists and secondary sources, not comics and movies. Mintrick (talk) 23:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 30[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vyacheslav Malyshev, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nikolai Kuznetsov. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
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) 13:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]
Hello, Qqs83. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]
Hello, Qqs83. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
October 2020[edit]
Hello, I'm Doniago. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Arcology, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please review WP:IPCV as well. DonIago (talk) 12:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)