User talk:Farsee50

'''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''' ]]

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Notability of Christian Tetzlaff
A tag has been placed on Christian Tetzlaff requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Weissmann (talk) 10:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Image permission problem with Image:104 0475.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:104 0475.JPG I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 15:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

REPLY: This seems a tad officious. I am sure it was my own image that I spent somwe time tediously uploading. But it no longer links anywhere so I cannot now identify it and I have not logged on in the interval so what can I do or so or say. Jonathan


 * Hi, this image was of "Karen Dunnell at UN statistics Commission, New York 2004", and was deleted as an "image lacking sources or licensing information". I would think that there would be no problem in uploading it again with better sourcing/licensing information if you still have the photograph. Kind regards, --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: FT letter re Statisticians
Obviously you can still access the text here. The problem is that it's mainly WP:OR, it's someones opinion on what happened, and it is written in a news tone. It needs to be compressed, referenced properly with tags and spell checked to start with, but even then it's existence is tenuous as it seems to add undue weight. ninety:one 21:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Farsee50! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 8 of the articles that you created  are  Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to these articles, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Ann Cartwright -
 * 2) Tomáš Netopil -
 * 3) Robert Neild -
 * 4) Richard Rampton -
 * 5) Tony Hall (arts manager) -
 * 6) Charles Gray (English judge) -
 * 7) David Bell (civil servant) -
 * 8) Anna Leese -

Speedy deletion nomination of Charles Gray (English judge)


A tag has been placed on Charles Gray (English judge) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you.  The Mi ke  •Wassup doc?  15:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Musique-Cordiale, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages St Raphael and Callian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Musique-Cordiale, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saint-Raphael (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Arpeggione in Doddington Oct 05.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Arpeggione in Doddington Oct 05.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly hi! 07:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Please claim your upload(s): File:Arpeggione in Doddington Oct 05.jpg
Hi, This image was seemingly uploaded prior to current image polices, Thank you.

However, as part of ongoing efforts to ensure all media on English Wikipedia is correctly licensed and attributed it would be appreciated if you were able to confirm, that it was your own work, by marking it as own, amending the information added by a third party, and by changing the license to an appropriate "self" variant. You can also add  to the media by uploader tag if it is present to indicate that you've acknowledged the image, and license shown (and updated the information where appropriate).

This will assist those reviewing the many many "free" images on commons that have not yet been transfered to Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Please claim your upload(s): File:Newnham from hilly field, 2000, no copyright.jpg
Hi, Thank you, for uploading this file.

However, as part of ongoing efforts to ensure all media on English Wikipedia is correctly licensed and attributed it would be appreciated if you were able to confirm some details,

If it's your own work, please include own, amend the information added by a third party, and change the license to an appropriate "self" variant. You can also add  to the media by uploader tag if it is present to indicate that you've acknowledged the image, and license shown (and updated the information where appropriate).

If it's not your own work please provide as much sourcing/authorship information as you are able to.

This will assist those reviewing the many many "free" images on commons that have not yet been transfered to Commons.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Errol bowing Faversham Oct 05.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Errol bowing Faversham Oct 05.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 11:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Please claim your upload(s): File:Newnham from hilly field, 2000, no copyright.jpg
Hi, This image was seemingly uploaded prior to current image polices, Thank you.

However, as part of ongoing efforts to ensure all media on English Wikipedia is correctly licensed and attributed it would be appreciated if you were able to confirm, that it was your own work, by marking it as own, amending the information added by a third party, and by changing the license to an appropriate "self" variant. You can also add  to the Media by uploader or Presumed self tag(s) if  present to indicate that you've acknowledged the image, and license shown (and updated the information where appropriate).

IF you have other uploads, please consider "claiming" them in a similar manner, You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log].

This will assist those reviewing the many many "free" images on commons that have not yet been transferred to Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Musique-Cordiale, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Graham Ross. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)