User talk:Expoarts

Hello Expoarts, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of Contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.
Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article Wizard — a Wizard to help you create articles
The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.
Guide to Wikipedia — A thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia.

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Expoarts, good luck, and have fun. --Hoary (talk) 02:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editing as advised[edit]

I'm puzzled by your summary for this edit:

Changed the opening sentence as advised, and therefore undoing this change to show the correct title of "artist"

What do you mean here by editing "as advised"? -- Hoary (talk) 02:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TheMindsEye commented "conflicts with lead sentence - change in both places or leave as is", so the change was made "as advised", although it is not uncommon for an artist working in the media of photography to also use the term "photographer", although their career is that of "artist" Expoarts (talk) 06:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. (I have a different idea about the distinction between the terms "artist" and "photographer", but this is probably by the way.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plural[edit]

Another oddity: In two messages here, you repeatedly refer to yourself (-selves) as "we". However, it's Wikipedia policy that User accounts can only represent individuals. You individuals using this account should abandon it, and each of you should start and use his or her own account. -- Hoary (talk) 05:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am an individual, I represent a collective who charged me with the task of introducing links to the article in question as it was orphaned. There are no other "individuals" using this account, only myself. Apologies, in future I will use the term "I". In a previous comment, I stated that I am not an experienced editor of Wikipedia, neither did I write this article. As it is very clear Mr. Hoary that you have decided to talk issue with this article, I will source an experienced Wikipedia editor and ask that "individual" to edit the article as required Expoarts (talk) 06:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're representing a collective that wants an article on a particular person to be improved, you risk being accused of having a conflict of interest. Please read this, not only in order to avoid such allegations but also in order to help the article. As for me, I did (and do) indeed take issue with the article, just as I take issue with any article that seems promotional. This doesn't mean that I want the article deleted, or that I oppose its improvement. No, instead let's have an article that straightforwardly describes significant achievements by Hodges, an article based on disinterested, reliable sources. The result will of course be dry -- but that's the nature of an encyclopedia. -- Hoary (talk) 07:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read the link, which is clearly not applicable in this case. As already stated, I was asked to improve the article by adding links to the article, in response to the orphan tag. I have done this and the orphan tag has been removed. Additionally, I have responded to some minor edits. I find some of your edits questionable, but as already stated, I am not an experienced Wikipedia editor and as such shall leave somebody with the proper experience to review and edit this article further. Expoarts (talk) 07:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

Hello. You have a new message at GoingBatty's talk page. GoingBatty (talk) 15:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Hodges (artist)[edit]

Rather than continue to throw accusations and insinuations my way, please try and be helpful and constructive. I haven't got the time to be searching through multiple lenghthy sources written in Italian. I tried my best to translate but did not find a reference to Hodges winning the award. Telling me "it's in the second and third source" does not answer my question specifically. I've no intention of going through the entire sources again. You really need to reassess how you interact with other editors if you wish to persuade them to help you develop this article. Sionk (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to be "helpful and constructive" from the outset, which is why I have taken the time and trouble to source and reference a variety of sources on the page in question. On the other hand, you seemingly are only interested to discredit and delete the page in question, and far from being "constructive" has been destructive. You seem to have little to know knowledge of the subject matter, do not properly review and assess the information and sources provided and additionally make false and inaccurate statements. It is very challenging to be constructive when dealing with anybody of this nature. You made (another!) incorrect statement saying that the sources I provided did not state Hodges was a recipient of the World of Fashion Award and you asked which of the sources stated this. I replied, telling you which of the four sources stated this. I then provided you with a fifth source and gave you an extract which is a specific quotation from that source. My time is also valuable and I cannot be responsible for the fact you are not able to read and assess the sources in question. As such, refrain therefore from making false and inaccurate comments and simply admit that you are not able to undertake the task in hand. This would save us all a great deal of valuable time. You might also wish to refrain from making unfounded insinuations. I have no difficulty in interacting with "other editors", only you as an editor! Expoarts (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your message[edit]

Got your message. Have you gone through the WP:Tutorial? It may help you with the nuts & bolts of editing. Also, you can always type {{Help me}} on this talk page and someone will assist. – S. Rich (talk) 03:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hodges[edit]

If you will look at this template – {{request edit}} – it will explain how to get edits done when there is a conflict of interest. You put the template on the article talk page, followed by the particular edit language you'd like. Verifiable sources/references are important. Quality composition helps greatly – people don't want to do homework for other editors. – S. Rich (talk) 18:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Expoarts, it sounds like things got off on the wrong foot, which is unfortunate. I was asked to take a look at the situation and comment. My recommendation to improve this situation is to make a list of sources that could be used to expand or improve the article. Most of the bickering so far seems to be around details that have been added to the article, but the sources used for these additions have reliability concerns. Unfortunately I couldn't find any good sources doing a quick search, but with me being in the USA I may be getting localized results, you may have better luck. Everything I found was a commercial site that was used to promote the artist, or was a site with user contributed content (a Self published source in wikipedia speak). Per Wikipedia policy, these types of sites are only usable as sources in limited situations. The best sources for creating a quality Wikipedia article are those that have been either peer reviewed or at least published by a 3rd party. However, If you can list some of these sources, we can work with you to resolve the other concerns that have been brought up. That's what I would need to help improve this article. If you have sources but need help with copyright issues or questions about if they can be used, we have a dedicated team for that, at Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard. Hope this helps and cheers, Dave (talk) 01:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]