User talk:Clarrisani

Torchwood

Can I ask why you are removing sourced information from the Torchwood character articles? You claim to be "updating" the articles with new information, but in doing so are also removing relevant information. Even if you do not consider the info to be "current" (and some of that stuff refers to seasons one and two, so I don't know why you consider it outdated), it still belongs in the article as the article takes a historical look at the character and not just their current storylines. I now have to weed through your edits and restore the old info while keeping your additions.  Paul  730 02:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I am removing stuff from Season One interviews that is outdated, and the Stephen James Walker (who is not connected to the BBC) information from the Unofficial Guides which shows a clear bias to the non-canon relationship of Jack/Gwen (I have read this book), and am replacing it with more current articles from the producers, writers and actors. The article in its original form was offending a large part of the fandom, particularly since it was calling upon the SJW book. Basically, I removed a lot of the bias. Also, I have added stuff from the development of Season Three.

Walker is entitled to his views however unpopular they may be with fans. The opinions of third parties such as critics and analysts are entirely relevant to articles about fiction, so long as those opinions can be reliably sources (and a published book certainly meets that criteria). The article specifies that this is the opinion of a published author, and does not present the information as unwavering fact. We have several opinions in the article stating how wonderful the "Janto" relationship is for both characters, and removing a reliable source because it's "upsetting many fans" is the true bias here. I'm sure if Walker was praising their relationship, noone would have any problem with it's inclusion.  Paul  730 03:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. It is simply more that Walker has a hatred of Ianto and has said some very nasty things about him in his books. I am not a Janto fan, rather I am trying to represent the show via an unbiased view (Janto is canon), and the original article showed a clear bias toward Gwack (which SJW is a fan of). It's not so much saying how wondering Janto is more than smoothing over Ianto's character to how he is on the screen. If you must leave it in, do so. The article seems to be more balanced now from my last view.  Clarrisani  02:47, 25 January 2009 (AEST)

The season one interviews are not "outdated" because fiction does not date in the way you're implying. We cover all fiction in the present tense, with equal coverage of both early and later seasons. What you're doing, removing information not relevant to current continuity, is considered recentism and discouraged on this site. Walker does not need to be connected to the BBC for his opinion to be valid, fiction articles often include the opinions of third parties to provide wider coverage on the subject. See the Cordelia Chase article, for example, which sources numerous essays analysing the character in both positive and negative ways. See also Nikki and Paulo, whose article included criticism on the characters. You claim you removed the bias, when in fact the article is now more biased after your edits because it contains only flattering information about the character coming from biased parties (ie, the people involved in the show who are trying to promote their product). It doesn't matter whether fandom is offended, because the article is not supposed to be a love letter to the character or his fans but rather a neutral account of his creation, development, and reception.  Paul  730 03:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I actually had to look "recentism" up, thanks for the link. Okay, I can see where you're coming from now. Can I make a suggestion of adding the year of the original quotes into the articles so that a casual viewer might be able to track the changes of the characters without needing to look down at the references?  Clarrisani  02:56, 25 January 2009 (AEST)

No problem, you're a new editor so noone expects you to know everything off the bat. :) You should also check out WP:WAF. About the quotes, you could probably just alter the prose so it's more obvious, "Discussing the character's relationship in series one, Barrowman says..." or "Barrowman believes the later season develops this, stating..." Try to avoid using phrases which will date quickly like "In a recent interview" though, per WP:DATED.  Paul  730 04:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Paul. I'll take a look at those changes so that they can be related to the season using your suggestions, and I will avoid the word "recent" like a plague. Sorry if I upset you initially.  Clarrisani  03:11, 25 January 2009 (AEST)

Lol, don't worry about it. I should probably have been more understanding since you're new here. If you have any other questions, just ask. :)  Paul  730 04:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Will do. There certainly seems a fair bit to learn. I'll keep it all in mind for future edits.  Clarrisani  03:16, 25 January 2009 (AEST)

Fair use rationale for File:Dinosaurworld.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Dinosaurworld.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will 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. Skier Dude (talk 03:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you did a good job in filling in the data on the basics in both of the templates - should cover the essentials for the 'fair use' rationale requirements. Skier Dude (talk 01:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Melbourne meetup this Saturday

	Melbourne Meetup Next: Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne/46 - Tuesday 13 August, 2024 (watch) Last: 18 February 2023
See also: Australian events listed at Wikimedia.org.au (or on Facebook)

Hi there! You are cordially invited to a meetup at North Melbourne this Saturday (23 July). Details and an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne 16 Hope to see you there! JVbot (talk) 04:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC) (this automated message was delivered to all users in Category:Wikipedians in Melbourne)

LTA addition

Would you please explain why Zythe (talk · contribs) was added to LTA in these three edits. I am pretty sure that only indefinitely blocked users warrant addition to the LTA list, so would you please either explain where a consensus to add this user occurred, or revert your addition very soon as it appears that the user has never been blocked despite having 24,661 edits since July 2005. Adding a user to LTA might be regarded as an attack which is not permitted; see WP:NPA. Johnuniq (talk) 07:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for replying on my talk, but this is an important discussion so I have copied your reply to here so it is all in one place. No need to notify me if you reply here. Johnuniq (talk) 10:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Johnuniq,

No personal attack is being made against Zythe. I went through all the files looking to see where to report him, and everything I found led me to that page. Wikipedia is confusing when trying to report a user for personal attacks, edit wars, etc. Zythe has been made personal attacks against people in the past. He also acts as if he owns pages, and reverts all edits he doesn't approve of, and participates in edit wars. Wikipedia is not clear on how to go about reporting someone. I've been trying to work it out for months, and it led me to led me to that page. Heck, I don't even know how to check if he has any sock puppets. Those pages are confusing too. --Clarrisani (talk) 09:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Next time, please see WP:DR and be very careful to not suggest that other editors have made personal attacks unless clear evidence is provided. It is acceptable to state that you have a disagreement with another editor, and that you think the matter needs investigation, but it is not acceptable to state another editor has done something wrong as if that were an established fact.

LTA is used to record exceptionally serious cases of abuse, and usually the editor concerned has been banned following lengthy community discussions. It looks like you have misunderstood the purpose of LTA, so please take the following steps to rectify the situation ASAP. First, use your contributions to check which pages you have edited, and undo your edits with an edit summary something like "remove my mistaken report". Second, at the report page, add {{db-author}} to the top of the page with edit summary like "please delete report made by mistake".

If you have any questions, please reply here. Johnuniq (talk) 10:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

How do you use TS-WT 3rr? I'm trying to work it out so I can report the edit war Zythe is raging with someone, where he is calling them "morons" and reverting their edits. --Clarrisani (talk) 10:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not recognize "TS-WT 3rr". Do you mean {{uw-3rr}} to leave a templated user warning for WP:3RR at a user talk page? If so, that might not be the best strategy unless you are really sure of the situation. Bear in mind that Zythe has 24,661 edits and has never been blocked—I have not seen any of their contributions but those raw numbers suggest an editor who is unlikely to need a templated warning.

Please do not do anything on Wikipedia until you have got that mistaken report page deleted. If necessary, find an active administrator and ask them for help, referring them to this discussion for background information. You could view WP:RFAA for ideas; it includes "place {{adminhelp}} on your talk page". Johnuniq (talk) 11:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, I'm surprised he hasn't been blocked in the past. Many of his edits are reverts, he's conducted himself in many edit wars over the years, has made personal attacks, etc. Wikipedia needs an easier method to report these people. Just because they've made a lot of posts doesn't make them a saint. Heck, one of his most recent edits reads "yes yes, it broadcast in various places, who cares" and another calling other editors "morons" again. --Clarrisani (talk) 12:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Per request at my talk page, I've deleted the LTA page. I've gone ahead and emailed you the content, since I see that you edited it in the past day and I assume that you want to keep it. I'd suggest keeping the information offline, to avoid on-wiki drama over it, if you decide to keep it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 06:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Melbourne Meetup

Hi there. Just inviting you to the Melbourne meetup this Sunday at 11am, to celebrate our 11th anniversary. Details on that page. Hope to see you there! SteveBot (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC) (on behalf of Steven Zhang)

February Melbourne Meetup

Hi All. Just letting you know that we have another meetup planned for Melbourne, on Sunday, 26th February at 11am. More details can be found at the meetup page. Pizza will be provided. Look forward to seeing all of you there :-) SteveBot (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Melbourne meetup

Hey all, just a reminder that there's a meetup tomorrow at 11am in North Melbourne. There are more details at the meetup page. Hope to see you tomorrow! SteveBot (talk) 03:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Meetup invitation: Melbourne 26

Hi there! You are cordially invited to a meetup next Sunday (6 January). Details and an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne 26. Hope to see you there! John Vandenberg 05:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in Victoria)

Fair Use in Australia discussion

As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of Fair Use into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, please read the proposal and comment there. MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Australian Wikipedians. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery