User talk:Ovann86

Please note that Image:CloudyBay002.JPG is currently listed for deletion because it has not been released under the GFDL or public domain licences required for Wikipedia. jimfbleak 11:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with upload of File:Claudio Alcorso-seated.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Claudio Alcorso-seated.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

The Arts Tasmania and Tasmanian Arts Advisory Board (TAAB) articles are unsatisfactory in several ways. Most critically, all or almost all of the text is copied from various web pages of the group, and , it seems, other previously published publicity material. It is not permitted to do this; even if is is you own the copyright and are willing to give us permission according to WP:DCM, the tone will not be encyclopedic and the material will not be suitable. I attempted to rewrite it, but gave up: too much of the material was unsalvageable. Following my responsibilities as an administrator here to remove copyvio, I had no practical choice but to delete the entire article.

As a general rule, a suitable page will be best written by someone without Conflict of Interest; it's not impossible to do it properly with a conflict of interest or as a paid press agent, but it's relatively more difficult: you are automatically thinking in terms of what the subject wishes to communicate to the public, but an uninvolved person will think in terms of what the public might wish to know.

Wikipedia articles should include only material that would be of interest to a general reader coming across the mention of the subject and wanting the sort of information that would be found in an encyclopedia. Do not include material that would be of interest only to those associated with the subject, such as the organizational details and detailed administrative history. There's a good place or that, which is your own web site, not a general encyclopedia . Do not include bios of the directors. List them, and link to the articles on Wikipedia if they are notable enough to have them. Keep in mind that the goal of an encyclopedia is to say things in a concise manner, which is not the style of press releases or web sites, which are usually more expansive.

If you think you can do it right according to our guidelines, rewrite the articles, but expect the article to be carefully checked for suitability.

If you want to use material from the website, follow the full formalities is WP:DVM, and place each part it in quotation marks with the specific source. But I would seriously advise you not to go to the trouble: it will be easier to rewrite. DGG ( talk ) 19:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a new page for you to use as a draft User:Ovann86/Arts Tasmania. Remember to be careful about copyright and Close paraphrase When you're ready, ask me or some other admin to look at it. DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About Tasmanian Arts Advisory Board (TAAB)

Hi again, Ovann86.
The article still appears be a straight copy-and-paste from the TAAB's website. And Facebook is generally not a reliable reference. I was once a small fish in the small pond of the Tasmanian Arts community, and would be more happy to help you out with this, (and anything else relating to anything at all.
Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 08:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:CloudyBay001.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of your uploads, File:CloudyBay002.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

absence of tasmanian regional councils

Thanks for your recent edit, it would be useful to clarify that "Divided Into Regions". The Examiner (Tasmania). Vol. CIX, , no. 16. Tasmania, Australia. 30 March 1950. p. 6. Retrieved 20 July 2024 – via National Library of Australia.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) never happened, then or since? It would be very good to get a handle on the absence of regional councils in Tasmania from a source, rather than an assertion in an edit summary - edit summaries get lost very quickly, and in some cases become difficult to read. Another editor could as easily revert your edits by asking for some evidence that regional councils dont exist, a suggestion from the mainland in 1950 is nothing to go by, but even then, most mainland states do have regional councils or similar phenomenon. JarrahTree 08:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Southern Tasmanian Councils Board (STCB), was established in November 2000 under a voluntary Agreement between the 12 Southern Councils - Brighton, Central Highlands, Clarence City, Derwent Valley, Glamorgan/Spring Bay, Glenorchy City, Hobart City, Huon Valley, Kingborough, Sorell, Southern Midlands and Tasman. The STCB was not a Joint Authority established under Division 3 of the Local Government Act (1993), and did not, therefore, have the status of an incorporated body- Southern Tasmanian Councils Board TA2033 [Records], Libraries Tasmania, 2000, retrieved 20 July 2024 - nevertheless it was established... JarrahTree 08:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JarahTree -

Thank you for the references and questions in relation to Local government areas of Tasmania article.

Regarding the "Divided Into Regions" newspaper article, dated 30 March 1950, and link to "The Examiner (Tasmania)" article - whilst interesting, I do not see how they support this topic. I would be happy to hear how they do, or more specifically how they support the existence of the 6 regions that the article previously quoted.

Regarding the "absence regional councils in Tasmania" - the council areas are the regions - there are 29 in Tasmania. The 6 regions that article previously quoted are not officially recognised regions. There appears similarities between the previously quoted "Greater Hobart" region and the ABS "Statistical Area Level 4 (SA4) (2021)" and "Greater Capital City Statistical Area (GCCSA) (2021)" regions - but the the boundaries are nowhere near similar enough for me to believe there is a correlation that supports the existence of the previously quoted 6 regions.

Regarding that "another editor could as easily revert your edits by asking for some evidence that regional councils don't exist" - this sounds like something you are wanting to do? It would be very difficult for me to reference something that does not exist - but I ask that if you do reintroduce the 6 regions, please add a reference to an official source that can prove their existence.

Regarding the "Southern Tasmanian Councils Board (STCB)" - to be clear, this entity does not constitute regional grouping of councils - which is what the article previously quoted, additionally there would need to be 5 other entities that cover all of Tasmania and include all of the councils for this to be reliable 'grouping' - which I have not yet seen evidence of. For example, the Glenorchy City Council is no longer a member of STCB - which would mean STCB does not cover the entire southern area of Tasmania. It appears that STCB was created as an instrument of the ongoing consideration towards council amalgamation - which at the moment is just unofficial resource sharing.

How can we help improve the article:

If you believe it is of interest to the public, and worthy for wikipedia, would you prefer we research this more and instead detail more about the STCB (and any other similar entities) along with listing which councils are a member?

I do not see any reason to believe these will be "regional grouping" of councils, like the article previously had. That could change if there is an authoritive source to quote that covers the entirety of Tasmania and all councils?

Instead, it seems like the article would benefit from details of the collaboration between councils, through the establishment of the STCB (and other similar entities), and/or details of consideration/actions/history towards council amalgamation?

Please, do feel free to clarify if you believe I have misunderstood, or there is more you can share on this article and topic of regional grouping of councils in Tasmania.

Thanks again - it's always good to hear from another perhaps interested in knowledge sharing. Ovann86 (talk) 10:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tasmanian articles and the general project space is probably the quietest location on wikipedia, so thanks for your comprehensive response. I simply wanted to point out that WP:RS either way is important - and really if the formal legal collaboration between the councils exist has existed, I have no access to paywalled websites (The Merc) only Trove, so I must bow out of any possible collaboration on recent news (1955-current). The level of material in Tas stubs is very wanting for updates, maintenance, and general improvement, and considering personal predilections, I tend to find a much more project wide issue editing habit these days. Thanks for your generous offer and understanding, trusting that the weather is enjoyable - https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-07-20/hazardous-weather-south-east-australia-strong-winds-hail-snow/104119890 I get nostalgic for the snow on mount wellington... JarrahTree 11:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

forget the weather

your update to the Arts Tasmania article is totally WP:NOT - there is not a sign of a WP:RS in the reference section - please understand that your edit is not in line with general understanding of what constitutes a reasonable citation - one source and that of the organisation can be considered a red flag to a reviewing editor.

Unfortunately Trove has been going down a lot recently, but anything other than the organisations website is what is needed to actually improve the article.

Even https://librariestas.ent.sirsidynix.net.au/client/en_AU/library/search/results?qf=LIBRARY%09Library%091%3ARTA%09State+Library+Reading+Room+%28Tas%29+%7C%7C+1%3ARSR%09State+Library+Reading+Room&qf=-LINC_TAS_AVAIL%09Availability%09Lending%09Lending&qu=arts&qu=tasmania. could help. JarrahTree 03:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, one again, JarrahTree.

I would appreciate an explanation of the specific issue(s) are you are raising.

specifically the part(s) you have a concern with; and
specifically what you would be a resolution.

As you mentioned earlier - there is a significant need to improve the wikipedia articles for Tasmanian topics.

I been reviewing the articles I have expertise with, and focused on removing details that are factually incorrect, updating what I can, and improving references - which I am sure you would appreciate has taken me several hours within the last week.

To receive a message like this, and your previous 'absence of tasmanian regional councils' that asserted that I need to find a reference to prove a regional grouping that does not exist, only serves to discourage contributing.

Rather than just broadly saying what my edit is not could you please assist by being specific - what are the specific issues and specific resolutions are are seeking.

RE: Trove, Examiner, Libraries Tasmania

I am aware of these sources - and thank you for sharing.

However, so far I have not seen any information that requires a citation of the information from these sources.

I will say that I am hesitant to use the Examiner as a source, since it is a commercial newspaper that may restrict access the information in the future.

RE: WP:NOT

I anticipate that you are referring to 'Key activities include:' list in the Arts Tasmania article

I also believe the copy is too self-promotional.

The previous copy was much the same, but I didn't want to implement changes too far from the previous copy.

If you believe the copy is an issue please:

specifically say so - preferably the specific portions or words;
specifically suggest or make edits that will resolve the issue.

RE WP:RS

Regarding that one source and that of the organisation can be considered a red flag to a reviewing editor - I will do my best to assume you are not suggesting my contributions are a red flag to you (who I assume are acting as a 'reviewing editor') - but again, if you want to specifically accuse me and my content as a 'red flag' please specifically say so.

Since this message is about the Arts Tasmania article, I will note that I have added references to improve the existing content. There are three separate sources being quoted - being 'Department of State Growth' (of whom Arts Tasmania operates under), the Department of Treasury and Finance, and the 'Tasmanian Legislation Online' websites.

All of these sources are reliable and authoritive sources - being the Tasmanian Government entities specifically responsible for the topics being referenced.

Your references to other sources, such as the Examiner, suggest you believe a third-party reference that is not reliable or not authoritive would be more suitable for wikipedia to meet the WP:RS requirements.

It seems more likely that there are no other sources I can reference for the details - even unreliable sources - in this case would you suggest I remove the references all together?

Is no reference an improvement in this case? Ovann86 (talk) 04:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not able to answer all your questions as comprehensively I would like.

The government websites are in effect not WP:RS - an article in The Mercury or The Examiner (or as a wildcard - Canberra Times from Trove, when it is online) is. I was hoping that the WP:RS page would give you a clearer understanding than I can do.

All of these sources are reliable and authoritive sources - being the Tasmanian Government entities specifically responsible for the topics being referenced is where I had hoped that the intention of the WP:RS explanation might clarify the problem. This is where I have to leave the questions for the moment. JarrahTree 06:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am honestly at a loss as to how to further discuss, as we seem to have very different understandings of what WP:RS means, I do hope that someone else might come here, and deal with the issues. I am sorry, I see not much hope beyond the basic misunderstanding. JarrahTree 10:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again JarrahTree,

It is getting late here, and it is unlikely I will have capacity to continue this volunteer work for wikipedia during the work week, so my response and any action to resolve your concerns may have to wait until the weekend.
There may be a misunderstanding between us -
- I see you have titled this discussion "deadlock on understanding WPːRS"
- I see you are directing me to the WP:RS page
- I have carefully reviewed the WP:NOT and WP:RS pages, and considered with your messages and the new copy in mind
- I am satisfied with the information on these pages, my understanding of what it says, and do not need further information or explanation as to the information
- I am seeking what your specific concerns are so that I can resolve those issues
Your messages were very direct in saying the updates were not appropriate for Wikipedia. Which I have to say is disheartening after spending so many hours carefully reviewing, researching, and revising the content.

Your messages were so quick to raise the issue, and I hoped there was a specific issue that I could also quickly resolve with your direction.

Perhaps, if you are unable to say what the specific issue is, we can resolve your concerns by me assuming what your concerns are, and asking you the direct questions.

RE: WP:NOT

Assuming the issue is that the Arts Tasmania is promotional, and that you are asking for further updates to resolve.
Grants and loans are a significant activity of Arts Tasmania.
- The previous copy directly quoted the names of the grant programs they have operated (including ones that are no longer offered).
- The new copy included updates to:
  - Resolve factually incorrect details - such as
    programs that are no longer offered,
    
    references to the TAAB Act being current, and
    
    no mention of the CCIA Act that was introduced several years ago
  - Reduce promotional copy
  - Add specific information of public interest (in regard to Arts Tasmania) - such as
    the public art program (it is of public interest because it was the first of its kind in Australia)
    
    peer assessment and strategic advice to the Minister (it is of public interest because it was a significant point in time for the Tasmanian arts community, and is a critically important concept to both supporting the community and as a body responsible for arts funding)
  - Citing refences that were not previously (focusing on information that I believe needed to be supported by a reference)
I believe the new copy has gone a long way towards improving the article, but your message(s) suggested otherwise, and I am keen to resolve your concerns - but I need to know what specifically you want done so I can do it.
I believe that reverting Arts Tasmania to the previous copy will not resolve concerns as the previous copy included:
- significantly more promotional copy; and
- factually incorrect information.
But I am not sure you are suggesting this as the solution when you said 'Another editor could as easily revert your edits' (with regards to the 'absence of tasmanian regional councils' article)

My question is: Would removing the specific activities (e.g. "Roving Curators") and instead covering high-level "function" such as "funding", "grants and loans", and/or "small museums" resolve your WP:NOT concern?

RE: WP:RS

Assuming the issue is that official government websites, even when they are the primary and authoritive subject matter expert, cannot be used as references.

I have tried to research this and saw that Australian Bureau of Statistics (the ABS) includes a 'primary sources' warning. Which appears to be because the article needs to reference the reports that the ABS are responsible.

This appears to be a similar scenario to the concern - like Arts Tasmania they too are the primary and authoritive subject matter expert.

Again, I will note that I have referenced three different websites in the article - although that is throughout the article - and not three different websites for piece of information.
I am at a loss to understand how Wikipedia can be reliable if it is unable to use these references, and instead either
- have no references (as the previous copy did) or
- have third-party references (that will raise questions of their reliability).
My question is: Would using additional references, in addition to the official government website, resolve your WP:RS concern?

If this is the case:

It seems quite likely this will require removing many of the references, as it would be uncommon for a third-party to describe the same information - as they too would just refer back to the source website.

For example - I won't be able to reference the Acts of law - as there is only one official source and third-party sources could be dangerously unreliable.

Once again - I am keen to understand how to resolve your concerns and will devote more of my time to - but at this point it may not be until next weekend. Ovann86 (talk) 12:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]