User talk:Fherkes

Welcome!

Hello, Fherkes, 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:

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 your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! —C.Fred (talk) 13:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate trivia

Greetings I see that these edits you made to Schwinn Bicycle Company were undone, and I agree with that removal. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of trivia; not every mention of Schwinn bicycles warrants mention in the article.

While you may be a fan of or otherwise familiar with Burn After Reading, that doesn't mean you should mention it in every article tangentially related to it. —C.Fred (talk) 13:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred: Dear sir, you have apparently not seen Burn After Reading. If you look at my addition to Schwinn's page, which you called indiscriminate (or which wikipedia calls indiscriminate under the criteria on the page you provided a link to), and know the characters from the movie, you would certainly not label it 'indiscriminate'. Chad Feldheimer is a sports instructor and professional cyclist, while Osbourne Cox has no knowledge of bicycles at all. Feldheimer laughs at Cox' statement, implying that Schwinn bicycles are not good enough for professional cyclist. Now wouldn't that be something you want people to know?

It's an interesting nugget of information, but the mention of the company in a work of fiction is not significant to the company. (We won't even go into the level of synthesis necessary to draw the conclusion that Schwinn bicycles are not good enough for pro cyclists from the quotation you listed.) —C.Fred (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred: Dear sir, I do not think that wikipedia is meant to represent the people or organisations linked to pages. With this you imply that all information related to people or organisations on wikipedia is biased in favor of them. Meaning all information on wikipedia would be (I am overstating) worthless due to incompleteness or framing etc. I see you have also deleted my similar addition to the Murrow's Boys, which I also do not understand. Let's not get in to metaphysical discussions, but in the end all we know is constructed and therefore to some extent fictional. The Coen Brothers write their stories very thoughtfully, they make their statements very discretely. I restate that both of my additions in the past few days are not just insignificant, since they both are interesting facts from a rare perspective in respect to the pages I posted them on. This last argument is even more convincing since you just stated that pages should contain information which are significant to the subject, meaning no inconvenient information to the subject is on those pages. My 'trivia' would set this straight.