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. IrishGuy talk 23:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Popular culture sections
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)

Disambiguation link notification for August 30
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)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

October 2020
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)