User talk:Frank Opinions

May 2016

Hello, I'm Theroadislong. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Jeremy Gardiner have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 17:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Frank Opinions! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Theroadislong (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Frank Opinions, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Please read WP:REFB Wikipedia for instance cannot be used as a reference to support content, that needs to be supported by reliable, secondary and independent sources that treat the topic in depth. Theroadislong (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Frank Opinions. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article Jeremy Gardiner, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 16:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everything uploaded has been submitted directly by the artist himself, uploaded on his behalf by a non-commercial known third party.Frank Opinions (talk) 16:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In which case you have a very clear conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not remotely concerned with what Gardiner has to say about himself, ONLY what the reliable sources report I suggest you stop editing the article directly and make suggestions on the talk page for others to consider. Theroadislong (talk) 16:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Can you please therefore return the edit to the one I uploaded directly prior to the edit today. Frank Opinions (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC) To repeat - I understand your observation and would request that you therefore return the pages content as I, an independent, non-related commercial contributor, had penned it prior to any entries/revisions made today Frank Opinions (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC) Can you please respond? Frank Opinions (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But that version also has a large unreferenced section too, lets just leave it as it is at the moment. Theroadislong (talk) 16:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to press but I feel your alert regarding Autobiographical and known party relationship claims is now giving quite an incorrect and false message to Wikipedia users I am asking you to respectfully return the edit to how it was verbatim, nothing more. Frank Opinions (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But as I say that would add back unreferenced material which I am not prepared to do. What is there now appears to be correctly referenced. Theroadislong (talk) 17:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC) I do not believe your summary is fair or correct. I am asking you to return the edit to it's previous iteration - all of my own composition - I am happy to source further references and citations amongst others collectors and fans as required. In the very least the alert that you have now put in place relating to 'Autobiography' and 'known third parties' must be removed. It is incorrect and unjustified now you have removed the bulk of the edit I uploaded today. I do not desire conflict but feel I am somewhat being placed in a vice due to my lack of understanding of Wikipedia protocol. Please reconsider and advise. Thank you. Frank Opinions (talk) 17:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Gardiner

It seems you have a conflict of interest regarding this artist and therefore it is not appropriate for you to remove the tag from the article. If you are being paid in any way to edit this article, you are obligated to declare this on your user page. Do not remove the tag without reaching consensus from other interested editors on the talk page. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have made very clear to another 'editor' that I am NOT being paid for this nor am I formally related to the artist in question. Various tiresome editor inputs are now bordering on intrusive and frankly have worn me down. I put it to you that such actions are not in the interests of Wikipedia as a credible up-to-date information resource, the artist himself or collectors, other painters and students who desire relevant information. I give up. I have tried to be patient in learning the protocols at play but this was my first (and last) attempt to contribute. What was an effort on my part to assist an artist who's work I collect and admire has become a Herculean task with over-enthused editors jumping to their own conclusions. Is it any wonder why people told me not to attempt to correct the entry in the first place. Frank Opinions (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you, as a collector of his work, believe that adding copyright violations and overtly promotional content to the article benefits either this encyclopedia or the artist, then I invite you to calm down and rethink your approach. I will be happy to assist you if you drop the combative attitude and start cooperating. Take a look at my user page. I have written and expanded hundreds of articles, many of them about artists. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My combative approach? I invite you to look at the thread in it's entirety please. I have 100% attempted to co-operate with requests made - I have never used Wikipedia as a contributor before. This was my first (and last) attempt in trying to edit any entry. From my very first attempt to do so, an editor immediately questioned my entry as if I was an old hand at this. That's fine from a quality control perspective and I understand the importance of editorial control. However, when you have never used wiki-page tools before, have never had cause to understand the protocols and rules at play, a helping human hand would be much more appreciated than what felt like an edict and a correction ruling. I didn't even know there were Wikipedia editors! or how the talk system functions - I don't think I do now! I've had a string of what felt like accusations and criticism thrown at me - honestly, for me, trying to update outdated material and offer more detail to scant entries is just as worthy and important as the independence of the platform hosting such a resource. I'm tired of what feels like quite a hostile back and forth process and question whether this is the best way of achieving what I believe we all want - which is accurate, up-to-date independent information. Oh, and as for your other query below regarding the uploading of a photo of Jeremy Gardiner himself and the example of one of his paintings that I admire - I contacted him first-hand by email and asked his permission - which he gave - he kindly provided both images to me -along with some text information, which I uploaded verbatim, not knowing that such a copy/paste of words written directly by the protagonist in question would break any rules/protocols. That was not my intention, and most certainly not his either. If I thought I'd experience what felt like hostility in contributing, I would never have wasted my time or any of yours on this in the first place. Frankly, I don't care what you do with the page going forwards. Now I have more of an idea of how/what Wikipedia operates; I'll leave it for you and others to be concerned about. I have supported Wikipedia with a small monthly donation for over four years now - I very much appreciate what the platform delivers. I just never realised what it takes to get information updated before. In my brief attempt at trying to contribute directly I have learnt something new and am pleased that I am more familiar with the rules and protocols that the platform upholds. Frank Opinions (talk) 08:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please think of it this way, Frank Opinions: If experienced editors were not diligent in protecting our standards, Wikipedia would deteriorate almost immediately into a swamp of unregulated advertising, blatant falsehoods, get rich quick schemes, penny stock promotion, copyright violations, ISIS propaganda, crude racism, crank refutations of Einstein's discoveries, slanderous attacks on people, and promotion of deranged conspiracy theories. This type of content pours in like water gushing from a fire hose, 24 hours a day. Only a few thousand highly experienced editors worldwide fight back against this swamp water. We can be curt at times, and I apologize to you. If you can recognize the truth in what I say, then please reconsider and join the team. We need intelligent, thoughtful people like you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Old Harry Summer Storm and Sunlight.png

Hello,

You are claiming this file as your "own work". How can that be if you did not paint it? Unless the painter has released all rights to you, in writing, then you do not have the right to freely license the painting under a Creative Commons license. Ownership of a canvas is not usually ownership of all rights. And even if the painter has released all rights to you, you should not claim a painting as your "own work" unless you actually painted it yourself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Sorry that Wikipedia is so unfriendly to new editors. It is one of the reasons that the number of editors is declining. Jonathan Bowen (talk) 00:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this sweet gesture. Wishing Wikipedia and those who continue contributing to it, my best wishes.