User talk:Vadim Galimov

Welcome!

Hello, Vadim Galimov, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! // Timothy :: talk 15:13, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

revert on Black veganism

Hey, VG! I wanted to explain why I reverted your edit at this article. In general we don't need an inline citation for assertions in the lead that have a citation in the sections, which this does. —valereee (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hi —valereee! Thanks for the clarification. I have to admit that I added the tag having skimmed the article for similar statemends and Ctrl+F'd the article for "twice"; totally my bad. But now that I've found the relevant sentence – it appears that the intro doesn't reflect the available data correctly at all. For one, it says "By 2020 research showed that..." in describing two tidbits while the second statement is cited to 2021 in the main body. Also, my maths could be totally off on this, but is "nearly one in three" actually "more than twice" than "one in five"? Wouldn't that only apply to a share of, say, one in <2.5? Most importantly, the Gallup poll the referenced Today.com article cites doesn't actually seem to include any data on Black people specifically – only people of color/nonwhites, so it appears the claims in the article could be misrepresentative of the actual findings (note that the Today.com article only says "a 2019 Gallup Poll found that nearly a third of people of color in America reported cutting down on meat"). I might be missing something, though. What do you think? Vadim Galimov (talk) 12:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, make any adjustments you think are improvements! If I disagree, we can discuss. It's best to have these kinds of discussions at the article talk, though, as that makes it easier for other editors to follow them. I only came here to explain my revert, as I don't like to revert newer editors without providing an explanation. —valereee (talk) 12:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee got it, will do. Thank you for reaching out! I am indeed quite new to this, so I appreciate the help =) Vadim Galimov (talk) 12:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

Hello, I'm Doniago. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, The Second Coming (poem), 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 referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 06:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thank you for reaching out. I’ll admit this is quite a puzzling case when it comes to referencing and I was hopeful that “common sense” (for lack of better term) would suffice – after all, the only possible sources for the claim would appear to be the multiple reviews and catalogue entries that, too, simply point out the apparent reference (e.g. [1] or [2]).

I should also point out that of the two adjacent entries in the article, one is entirely unsourced and the other links to a source that contains no direct confirmations of the Yeats reference. Do both of these also not rely on the glaring similarity between the titles? (I’ll not even mention the in-your-face pun). Vadim Galimov (talk) 10:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I did intend to mention WP:IPCV in my note for you here; I mentioned it in my edit summary when I reverted you, but I should have done so here as well to avoid ambiguity. In short, pop culture references to songs, etc. should be accompanied by secondary sources, as a means of establishing that the reference is significant. As an example, we wouldn't update Citizen Kane to mention every time The Simpsons referenced the film, but if a reference received some attention in the media, then it's more worthy of being noted. Informally, I like to say that the point isn't to prove that the tree fell in the woods, but that it made a sound when it fell down.

If there are other instances in the article of 'in popular culture' style mentions without appropriate sourcing, you're welcome to tag or remove them accordingly. Happy to try to address any other questions/concerns you might have. Happy editing! DonIago (talk) 13:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That does make a lot of sense – love the tree analogy! Thank you for clarifying and for your patience; guess it’s time for me to do some source-digging, then =) Vadim Galimov (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Thanks for understanding my concerns, and especially for appreciating my terrible analogy! :) Cheers! DonIago (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]