User talk:Crzyclarks

Welcome to Wikipedia from Gareth Griffith-Jones

Signing and dating your editing

Hi, Crzyclarks. I welcome you to Wikipedia! Thank you for all of your edits. I hope you like editing here and being part of Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); when you save the page, this will turn into your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or put {{helpme}} (and what you need help with) on your talk page and someone will show up very soon to answer your questions. You also might want to consider being "adopted" by an experienced user, who can show you how Wikipedia works through a program called "Adopt-a-User". Again, welcome! Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will the sinebot's signing be the same though? Crzyclarks (talk) 23:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your typing the four tildes at the end of your posting on a talk page shows up similar to mine above. The sinebot only picks up when someone is editing the Discussion page of any Article – not User talk pages.

Consequently, your two entries here have not been signed or dated.

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2009 film), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I did go to the talk page and say why I thought the removal was necessary. I got no response for quite a while so I changed it again. Crzyclarks (talk) 23:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your quick response. It is appreciated. I do not want to put you off editing Wikipedia, but there is a lot to learn.

Removing chunks of text, without first giving an explanation on the article's discussion page, is not a good idea. What you are suggesting by your edit is not essentially incorrect. However it has been in the article for some time now.

Keep in touch! All the best, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 22:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This morning, I have posted on the The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2009 film) discussion page. Have a look!

Consequently, I have reverted my revision. Your edit is now the current version.

I sent you an e-mail too, regarding the section above on Wikipedia signing. See above!

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 10:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok cool. Thanks for being so helpful btw! Crzyclarks (talk) 14:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ME3 reception

Hi Crzyclarks,

Concerning IGN, if you do feel that IGN should be mentioned in the reception, please expand beyond 'gave it a 9,5 review and called it "amazing"'. The score is listed in the reception box, so it basically is just a one word review :P. I don't really care for the whole Chobot - ahem - "controversy", but I am in favor of good reception sections! Thanks, and happy editing. --Soetermans. T / C 15:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yea I thought I'd leave it to others to go find some quotes from the review, I just didn't want IGN to be left out because of something so ridiculous. Crzyclarks (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok edited so it's better, hopefully it won't be undone. Crzyclarks (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great work. If others still claim it should be removed, I got your back. --Soetermans. T / C 19:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Crzyclarks. You have new messages at Gareth Griffith-Jones's talk page.
Message added 15:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Just click on my name above to take you directly to your message!

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 15:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Crzyclarks. You have new messages at Gareth Griffith-Jones's talk page.
Message added 16:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Another one.

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Crzyclarks. You have new messages at Gareth Griffith-Jones's talk page.
Message added 16:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Question for you

... Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 2012

Your recent editing history at Kony 2012 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Zhou Yu (talk) 03:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality

Hello again Crzy, I have removed the warning posted last night because it was not signed & not dated. The editor was wrong in that respect. However, you really don't want to risk getting a block. Best to keep away from the article for a few days. With kind regards, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yeah, my internet lagged a bit and I think I undid two different edits when I was trying to undo one. I'll wait another day or two for a response on the discussion page before editing it. Crzyclarks (talk) 11:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know exactly what you mean. Cheers! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 12:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of a day for edit warring, as you did at Homosexuality. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Crzyclarks (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I made 5 reverts to edits that changed the article a lot, and I think misrepresent what the sources actually say. I didn't stick to the 3RR, as the discussion page would take to long, all the while people who are reading the article will be under a false impression of what the statistics are. They are very important statistics, as they are in the introduction of the article and people reading will be under the impression that up to 13% of people are homosexual, when in fact, the sources say 1-3%. The responses I received on the discussion page did not address the issue at all. I also stopped reverting after the 5th and waited for a response, replying in the discussion to statements that had very little to do with the issue. There was some reverting before this incident, however I think if you look at the information there, it is well sourced and didn't deserve removal (only one source should have been removed). My last reply regarding that edit hasn't been addressed. If you read what I was trying to add and the reasons, then I don't think the previous incident will affect how you perceive this one (I didn't break the 3RR). The warning on my page up the top is in response to 3 reverts of material, though the issue has been rested for now. Talk:Homosexuality#Unreliable_sources

Decline reason:

Unfortunately, although there are some times that we are permitted to break WP:3RR, what you describe is clearly not one of them. Indeed, you can be blocked for edit-warring after a single edit in many cases. This is a short 1 day block to protect the project while you read and truly understand WP:3RR, WP:EW, WP:DR and WP:BRD (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Disruptive editing

Please don't edit disruptively. Don't remove common use of language from an article in an attempt to make a point. To start a conversation in an elevator falls clearly within the standard usage of the word "approach", both the second meaning "to make advances" as well as the 5th "To speak to, as to make a request or ask a question". Is English not your first language? Yworo (talk) 19:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is designed for the reader, not the editor. I believe most readers will see "approach" as walking up to somebody. In the context of the article, that person sounds more dangerous or devious than he actually was. It makes it look like he got on the same elevator in order to invite her to his room. Crzyclarks (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, native speakers of English are quite aware of the various subtleties of meaning of the word "approach" and are aware that not all uses involve physical movement. Wikipedia is written for the fluent speaker, and is not to be dumbed down for the reasons you suggest. Yworo (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blame the education system, not me. The sentence can be reworked with the word approach in it. At the moment it may not be clear that he was simply talking to her whilst in the same elevator. Crzyclarks (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No need for any reworking. It is completely accurate according to the Mail & Guardian article[1]. He was not already in the elevator. He came up behind her and followed her into the elevator: "she was tired and headed off to the elevator and to her room. A man came up behind her and joined her in the elevator." Falls clearly within the meaning of "approach", including the physical aspect. Yworo (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Best to stick to the account she gave when she first said it. She changed her story after criticism, for example on her next video she changed it to say he cornered her in an elevator. If you say he approached the elevator, then fine, he didn't approach her. Crzyclarks (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, secondary sources are actually preferred to primary ones. Take it up at Talk:Rebecca Watson and get a consensus or leave it alone. Yworo (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's made an edit there for 8 months. Yes, secondary sources are usually preferred, in this case a primary one is required for an account of what happened. Her first account of what happened is required, as opposed to a changed account later on. If you find a secondary source that quotes what happened from her first account, as opposed to subsequent ones, then fine. From what she said, they happened to be on the same elevator, so we're getting sidetracked. I don't see the problem in making what happened clearer. Crzyclarks (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PRIMARY: "Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." Use of either primary source relies on interpretation on your part: we allow secondary reliable sources to interpret and report what they say, we don't allow Wikipedia editors to interpret primary sources themselves. Yworo (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Getting a consensus on the talk page is the only way you will get to change the article. Article wording is presumed to be the product of the consensus of the editors involved in writing it. If you make a change and another editor such as myself disagrees, then the consensus which resulted in the wording is presumed to remain. It's one against one, so there is no change in consensus and no change to the article. You need to show that multiple regular editors of the article agree with you. So unless you start the discussion where others can join, the article doesn't get changed. How long it has been since the article or the talk page have been edited is irrelevant. Interested parties are watching both. Yworo (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care enough to bother lol. I don't see how the reader loses out when the event is made more clear. Use a secondary source based upon what her first account was. If you can't find one, then just quote what she said. Crzyclarks (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just realised you and I were debating the Rupert Murdoch article. I'm curious if this is a coincidence. Crzyclarks (talk) 23:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bold, revert, discuss

Please be aware of our Bold, Revert, Discuss process. If you make an edit, and another editor reverts you, your next step should be to start or join a conversation on the article talk page. You make your point and see if there is a consensus in agreement with you. You should not revert to your preferred version unless such a consensus forms. Following this process will result in a more enjoyable experience on Wikipedia, which is not about you being "right". It's about developing articles via consensus. Yworo (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Service award

This editor is a
**Novice Editor**
and is entitled to display this **Service Badge**.

In recognition of your 200 edits and 1 month on Wikipedia, I award you this badge. Other versions of this service award are available here. You may put whichever version of the award you prefer on your user page if you wish, and may upgrade yourself to the next level of award after you have achieved 1000 edits and three months of service. Yworo (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Crzyclarks (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Yworo (talk) 23:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. Noticed that you dropped into my User page last night ... thanks for leaving a calling card. All the best! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 11:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yeah, I was having a read and noticed the tiniest error possible lol. Btw, if you still have IC on your watchlist, you can remove it if you want. Crzyclarks (talk) 01:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 2012

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to A. E. Wilder-Smith. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed he was still alive, as no information on his death was there. Crzyclarks (talk) 12:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that he died in 1995 (as fact confirmed by his website). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]