User talk:Farsee50

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks for visiting my talk page. If you post here, I will reply here so that the whole exchange is to be found in one place. If I have posted to your talk page, do post your replies there...I'll watch. Please add (and sign) your message at the bottom, or click here to start a new section. Thank you


]]

Contents

[edit] Plácido Domingo

Hi, don't worry it wasn't your edits I was referring to it was another editor who keeps trying to restore their version of the article with POV statements and 1934 birthdate. Cheers Arniep 00:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC) Oh fine, thanks!--Farsee50 00:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Lynch (arts manager)

Hello, sorry for moving that to the "bank executive" title. I saw "South Bank Centre" in the article and thought it sounded like a financial center, so I guess I jumped to conclusions. I've moved the article to the current title (that is, "Michael Lynch (arts manager)"), because we usually disambiguate things with parentheses rather than commas. Thanks a lot, and sorry again for any misunderstanding...Scott5114 03:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diane Abbot

Example from what you wrote; "The ostensibly-improbable chemistry between Portillo and Abbott, both deemed mavericks respectively from the right and left but able to relate to each other gently and humorously on TV" this is very conversational in style and appears to be original research (OR), i.e. it appears that you have watched the show that that this is what you beleive to be true. While it may indeed be true (I haven't sen the show) it is OR all the same. This is even more true of the sentence "On occasions when other politicians replace them, the easy style of the show rarely works and even Neil seems less affable"

Also, "Her decision to send her son to private school was widly seen as hypocritica ... She defended it robustly", according to whom was her defence robust this looks like POV to me.

I didn't mean to put the op ed link in the article that was an editing error.

I do not think that my Rv of your text was arbitary but maybe it was a bit harsh, I'll try to rework you text to something we can both agree on.

I'll copy our conversation to Talk:Diane Abbott as that probally the best place to have this discusion.--JK the unwise 17:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Golijov

Thanks for yr comments on SAU review - nice to know someone out there reads my stuff - missed Upshaw in January as I was in Russia, but I am a great fan of hers and catch her when I can. As regards Portillo/Abbott - there is something about Portillo which seems to provoke strong responses both pro and anti, I dedicate myself to trying to keep the article 'encyclopaedically neutral' (which is of course itself highly subjective, I admit). Best regards from sunny Tbilisi --Smerus 07:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Blair

Hi again, when you make big edits to an article it's best to check the previous few edits to make sure there hasn't been vandalism. Regards Arniep 18:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I will watch that. It was actually my wish to RV the vandal working on both this and the Jowell article that made me look at this today!--farsee50 19:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Balance/Size/Structure/issues i.e. the challenge for Wikipedia

Re: Tony Blair article - applies even more to others (e.g. Berlusconi), to some of which I have contibuted.

This article is getting to be almost as long and internally-contradictory as the Berlusconi one. Inevitable for conroversial/powerful and especially contemporary people, I suppose; their bios also attract disporportionate vandal abuse as well as strongly-felt POVs. The result is that it's beginning to lose cohenence, reads like something written by a large and factious committee (the essence of Wikipedia, I suppose), keeps swinging about and needs an army of alert defenders to watch over it. As such it is quite useful for flagging key issues about the subject but is not a reliable source in the way that, ironically, articles about some more abstruse subject that attracts only knoweledegeable and studious contributions and factual corrections from others, can often be. Quite a challenge to the Wikipedia idea, really as it's hard to see how to safeguard and enhance it according to NPOV Wiki principles without a more authoritarian non-Wiki approach (or elite committee to preserve the anti-elite Wikipedia idea!) --farsee50 11:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)