User talk:Alexs letterbox
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
User talk:Alexsletterbox/Archive1
Contents |
[edit] Image:Simon Rattle.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Simon Rattle.png. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
- On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Chowbok ☠ 22:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Porgy and Bess
[edit] Random comments by anons
I am not sure how to contact you through wiki so i will like this.. One of the great things about wiki is the depth and breadth of the knowledge to be found, while i willingly concede my first entry on porgy and bess contained superfluous and maybe even sycophantic, the latest contribution is a totally unbiased account of a very important chapter in the history of Porgy and Bess. As you know an encyclopedia contains comprehensive information on various subjects. I cant understand why wiki users shouldn't have a good deal of information this chapter in the life of porgy and bess and the gershwin estate. This is the first time ever that the gershwin estate have allowed such changes to be made on stage.. It is a Worlds Premiere of Porgy in a new form directed by one of the worlds most successful musical theatre directors. I am not opening up a soap box discussion on the merits and the flaws of the transition, merely documenting the bones of the process and the main players involved. Wiki users will not lose but only gain from this added information. I am very sure that the gershwins would not consider this information to be superfluous or this production to be just another in a line of porgy prodictions..Please consider.
thank you
please feel free to contact me on, iamsumware@hotmail.com,
[edit] Porgy and Bess
I have seen you have made changes again, i would appreciate you explaining to me why one line 'would be enough' and 2 paragraphs too much? you obviously have much more wiki experience than me and your understanding would help me. This is the biggest thing to happen to porgy for decades, there are 4 other 'subsequent productions' mentioned each with an average of 2 paragraphs written about them. What qualifies these as being worthy of 2 paragraphs.. is it because they are of american origin? Why is his production less interesting than Crawfords revival? .. Also, because the production is currently running you can imagine why wiki users would want their encyclopedia to have more information on this production. Please contact me so i can understand better. I imagine you also want what is best and are confident enough that an independent assessment would rule on what is best for wiki,
[edit] Porgy and Bess
Hi, I appreciate your response but i feel that you have not dealt with the major points of my argument, notably that this is a 'world premiere' successful or no, the fact that the actual Gershwin estate have warranted such a title and such changes is enough in my opinion to note who is involved and the bones of the process. Secondly what do wiki users lose from this additional factual information? Surely the point of wiki is to give people a depth and breadth of knowledge, is this trivia? No, it is an exciting (and at least interesting) part of Porgy's progression.. Is it soap box or some polemic view point? No, nothing written can be disputed.. I am unsure under what wiki guidelines you feel it is necessary to press this point of deleting a couple of lines of intresting information. Surely it is not so important that this information is not available . Please address these 3 issues.
1- Merit of paragraphs- This is a world premiere sanctioned by gershwin estate 2- What do we lose out on by having this factual information 3- What wiki guideline is so explicitly contravened which warrants this kind of attention to 2 paragraphs of undisputed fact?
thank you
[edit] Porgy and Bess
Alex, i understand your points although your response i feel doesn't really deal with the three issues i brought up, nowhere have you acknowledged the relevance of this production being a world premiere, that this is (biggest or not) a FIRST for porgy.. and you have also not addressed the second point with fairness. With all due respect, who are you to decide that the extra 20 words should be cut. It's 20 words alex not of trivia but of factual information. 20 words isn't that much ( even when put into the context of the article.) I think - with respect-you should take a step back and remember that there are varied views and perhaps you should restrict your editorial decisions to the indisputable or the obvious. Like I've said I appreciate your stepping in and helping the paragraph from being biased, but this issue is a subjective one and I urge you to be humble enough to allow these lines of indisputable fact and (perhaps) questionable interest into wikipedia. Give the benefit of the doubt. Allow for the fact that you are not executive editor but rather someone who has a great deal of knowledge and experience with wiki who thankfully puts in the time and effort to help steer wiki in the right direction- not squabble over points such as these. Ie 20 extra words is far too much to talk about a production which is a world premiere, a first for the West End etc. I would like to enter my revised paragraph again ie the one without bias but with the added information, will you object to this?
Thank you
