Talk:Pears (soap)/Archives/2013

My edit—good? No good?
I have made some [ rather lengthy edit] in this article... Now I have doubts in regard to that edit's quality. It's so hard to judge oneself objectively... (Hah, it's hard to judge anything objectively!)

Now I feel that my edit is a mix of facts, judgement and original research.

My original aim was simple: to shed more light. But perhaps I did no justice to this product.

Also my edit has blown out of proportion one section at the cost of other sections... as if all that matters about this nice soap is its recent formula change. It may be important but obviously there's much more to this brand and the soap. I have dismissed this particular fear of mine on the grounds of an established consensus that electronic publications have no volume concerns like their paper-based counterparts: if there's something valid to be said, it should be said.

If someone can make it more objective, of course they are welcome.

Maybe someone has enough "positive" material to add to the article to counterbalance the "negative" I have dived in.

I, for one, used this soap recently for the first time in life and plainly enjoyed it for its quaint appeal and "amber" smell. This should be Polish, not British, LOL, given that amber is Poland's national specialty!

– 6birc (talk) 13:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

– 6birc (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Giving it a second look, I must say that it wasn't too bad. I just highlighted facts, even if in a somewhat obsessive manner. When it comes to whatever claims lacking sources, I mostly inherited these from previous contributors. It wasn't my then-mission of choice to verify and prune them.


 * Obsessive is the word! I'd worry about going within 10m of Pears, let lone using it on my skin, after reading this article. -taras (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's great that non-native English speakers get a chance to edit the English Wikipedia, but I've taken most of it out; the facts were unreferenced, and the judgement and original research don't belong here. I say this as someone who also doesn't like the new Pears. I surmise that it lasted since June 2010 because the subject is of interest only to British wikipedia editors, and so the great counterbalancing mass of full-timers never edit the page. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I feel relieved... the article is now looking good! I'm glad that somebody has taken care of it. My contribution was embarrassing. I felt like a hit-and-run driver! But I couldn't do anything about it... I couldn't simply flash-discard my edit because nothing that I posted was false. It only made the whole article terribly unbalanced. I really like the Pears soap! I can see how this product is not going to appeal to organic goods buyers or tradition lovers. It only imitates the historical product. But its chemical composition is no worse than that of any competitor's product. While it could affect the health of someone of a sickly or fragile predisposition, it's not going to harm a person of robust health. This product didn't deserve to be massacred. To Ms. Pomeroy: Whatever you have removed or added... it has helped! I'm not sure what that was, but my contributions are still there. They are now simply balanced by other, equally interesting information. I don't remember including any original research, everything was facts. I edit the English Wikipedia because I don't "have" any other Wikipedia... English is the only World Language that there is! Therefore it is my language. I must say that local languages are fun but, other than that, they only divide and distract the humanity. My hope is that my English has improved since that last post made in year 2010.  – 6birc (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)