User talk:Stevejohnson82

Welcome!

Hello, Stevejohnson82, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Joaquin008 ( talk ) 19:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Jim Lee


Your new article on "Jim Lee (Photographer and Film Director)" (which I've renamed Jim Lee (photographer)) seems plentifully sourced at first glance. However, a considerable number of the cited sources are not only unavailable online but would be hard to find in a large reference library. This in itself would normally be a matter of regret, but nothing worse. Here, though, they worry me, because neither of the two sources that are available online and that I've bothered to look at so far says what your use of it in the article suggested that it says -- instead, the cited "source" just says something that's vaguely compatible with what the article said before the footnote. (See Talk:Jim Lee (photographer).)

Please reread your sources, attributing to them no more than what they actually say.

You appear to have access to Lee's cuttings book. (I can hardly believe that you would otherwise know where to look in thirty-year-old advertising magazines and the like.) How come? -- Hoary (talk) 01:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfair Criticism
See comments on the Talk page for my detailed response to the points you made there. To re-iterate briefly, each paragraph of each section is drawn for numerous sources, and I had not considered it necessary to put (duplicate) in-line references on a point-by-point basis. I can appreciate the confusion this may have caused, and I will attempt shortly to go through and clear up any points where there appears to be any ambiguity.

I am new to wikipedia, but this article has been a long time in the making and I am was really quite proud of it! Almost all the sources from the late 80s onwards are available online, but you need subscriptions to things like proquest and nexis. I did get a few of the early newspaper references from the British Library (whilst procastinating heavily from writing my dissertation!) and I have a friend who works at Campaign magazine who was able to pull out some of the seventies Campaign magazine articles, whilst the Paris Photo article came from a course we did at undergraduate level.

I was under the impression that that kind of effort would earn me the respect of Wikipedia editors, as opposed to people who simply rely on google as the source and arbitrator of all information... Stevejohnson82 (talk) 12:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)