Talk:Tim Flach

University of East London

"Tim Flach studied Communications Design at the University of East London(1977–1980)"

Remarkable if true, given that the university didn't exist at the time. Did he perhaps study at this or that precursor of UEL? -- Hoary (talk) 14:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

When Tim was at this college it was call East London Polytechnic, Since then has been renamed University of East London. This has been amended by journalist to it's current name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.23.194 (talk) 06:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Equus.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Equus.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

At least one major contributor to this article appears to have a close personal or professional connection to the topic, and thus to have a conflict of interest. Conflict-of-interest editors are strongly discouraged from editing the article directly, but are always welcome to propose changes on the talk page (i.e., here). You can attract the attention of other editors by putting {{request edit}} (exactly so, with the curly parentheses) at the beginning of your request, or by clicking the link on the lowest yellow notice above. Requests that are not supported by independent reliable sources are unlikely to be accepted.

Please also note that our Terms of Use state that "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." An editor who contributes as part of his or her paid employment is required to disclose that fact. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Request edit on 20 March 2018

Books Please can the books section be updated with additional info - each books international editions as follows:

Equus (2008) US & UK: Abrams, Germany: Knesebeck, Italy: Rizzoli, France: Prisma Editions, Australia: Thames & Hudson, Japan: Seigensha

Dogs Gods(2010) US & UK: Abrams, Australia & NZ: Hachette Livre, France: La Martiniere, Germany: Knesebeck, South Africa: Wild Dog, China (2011): China Photographic Publishing House

More than Human (2012) US & UK: Abrams, Germany: Knesebeck, Australia & New Zealand: Hachette Livre

Endangered (2017) US & UK: Abrams, Germany: Knesebeck, Italy: Rizzoli, France: Prisma Editions, Australia: Thames & Hudson, Japan: Seigensha

82.43.222.31 (talk) 12:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Photography Section

Please can the Photography section be updated to reflect a focus in direction, toward animal conservation. Tims ideas revolve around using stylised portraiture as an effective way of connecting people to nature and feel emmpathy towards endangered animals, as a tool to drive behavioural change. This has been Tim’s focus for the past 3 years and there are a number of articles that articulate this, such as below:

Mans Best Friends - The Economist https://www.1843magazine.com/culture/the-daily/mans-best-friends

Endangered in Pictures - The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/23/tim-flachs-endangered-species-in-pictures

Life in Harmony - Sputnik https://sputniknews.com/environment/201706081054437868-natural-world-protection/

Thanks 82.43.222.31 (talk) 12:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Reply quotebox with inserted reviewer decisions and feedback 20-MAR-2018

Below you will see where text from your request has been quoted, while individual advisory messages either accepting, declining or otherwise commenting upon your proposals have been inserted underneath each major proposal. Please see the Notes section at the bottom of the quotebox for additional information about each request. Spintendo      13:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Please can the books section be updated with additional info - each books international editions as follows: Equus (2008), Dogs Gods(2010), Endangered (2017)
 Not done
___________

More than Human (2012)
 Done
___________

Please can the Photography section be updated to reflect a focus in direction, toward animal conservation. Tims ideas revolve around using stylised portraiture as an effective way of connecting people to nature and feel emmpathy towards endangered animals, as a tool to drive behavioural change. This has been Tim’s focus for the past 3 years and there are a number of articles that articulate this.
 Unable to implement
___________

Request edit on 10 April 2018

Hi, Tim Flach Please can the first introductory paragraph be updated to contain some further information with more detail about Tim Flach. Please change this: Tim Flach is a British photographer who specialises in photographing animals. He has published several books of photographs. To this: Tim Flach (born 1958) is a photographer and director, known for his animal photography. Flach has produced a number of books and exhibited his work widely. He has received an honorary Fellowship of the Royal Photographic Society (2013)(1.) and an Honorary Doctorate from Norwich University of the Arts (2013)(2.).

1. http://www.rps.org/about/awards/history-and-recipients/honorary-fellowships 2. https://www.nua.ac.uk/news/honorary-doctorates-for-fashion-industry-doyenne-pioneering-photographer-and-renowned-walking-artist/

Thank you

Reply

The lede is an overview of the subject. Details such as honorary doctorates and such are best covered in the main body of the text. The minimal amount of text provided means that readers of the article will not encounter difficulties locating this information. Regards,  Spintendo      13:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Further to this: the proposed text was unduly promotional in tone (please note that this is an encyclopaedia, not LinkedIn). I've added the RPS fellowship to the page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:PROMOTION of any kind

Justlettersandnumbers wrote in an edit (actually, wholesale reversion) summary:

Wikipedia does not tolerate WP:PROMOTION of any kind, including this kind.

It would be helpful if Justlettersandnumbers were more specific. -- Hoary (talk) 09:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes indeed, Hoary, that wasn't the clearest explanation of my reasons for reverting – sorry about that! A better summary would have read: "conflict-of-interest editors are STRONGLY DISCOURAGED from editing the page directly, and are invited to propose improvements on the talk-page instead". To expand a little more: my initial concerns here were the WP:COI and/or undisclosed paid editing; poor sourcing (to his own publications, a commercial networking consultancy, etc); the unencyclopaedic content and promotional tone; and the removal of sourced material. I noticed the WP:BLP violation and minor copyvio only later.

We are lucky enough to have a source, published by a noted academic press, with extended and detailed coverage – some forty pages of it – of this person, his work, his methods and his significance; I suggest that anyone interested in expanding this article should build on that.

If Samsonsegg wants to propose additions to the page, his/her first step is to disclose the nature of his/her connection to Flach; the second is to propose any desired change here, on this page (instructions in the section "Conflict of interest" above). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah, but this assumes that User:Samsonsegg does have a conflict of interest. I'd say that the user's edit patterns are compatible with a COI, but that's about as far as I'd go.

Like them or not, Samsonsegg's edits were rather sweeping. Within them, what was the sourced material that was zapped? (If specifying this is laborious, just say so: I'll then fortify myself with an extra cup of coffee, and look for myself.)

I don't have access to Cheryce Kramer's "Digital Beasts as Visual Esperanto: Getty Images and the Colonization of Sight". Of course it doesn't have to be available on the interwebs in order to be citable -- but is it available, do you know? -- Hoary (talk) 22:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The removal I was thinking of was this one, where the editor apparently claims to have better knowledge of Flach's methods than does the published source. That source is available to me in preview on Google books; as you probably already know, the pages that are not shown can sometimes be accessed by changing browser or IP (and can be addressed directly by changing "&pg=PG147" to whatever number you want). Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Dear all, I am finding it strange that my upload is being reverted to the old page, as reversion generally is discouraged, and as the old page is, as I explained when I made the changes, inaccurately referenced and poorly structured. And I'm not sure why this a COI issue? I would be happy for editors to remove the parts with which they have a specific problem while providing an explanation. Adding things which would flesh out the page would be even better! Yet I cannot understand or approve the kneejerk reversion to an inferior page. As for Cheryce Kramer's book, it is indeed on Google Books -- should the reference be changed to a link to that page rather than to the paper book? (And as for using it as a sole resource, I think that might be unwise at it is almost fifteen years old.) -- Samsonsegg

May I request that my edit be reinstated for the above reasons and then amended gradually where appropriate? Thank you -- Samsonsegg

disruptive content, consensus

Scope creep wrote in an edit (actually, wholesale reversion) summary:

Removed disruptive content, and unexplained addition of text added outside consensus.

First, it would be helpful if Scope creep said just what was disruptive, and how. (Was it perhaps disruptive to change "Hatchette" to "Hachette"?)

Secondly, it's not normal to ask for and gain consensus before adding text. I'm not aware of any such general requirement, and indeed it's hard to square such a general requirement with the encouragement to "be bold". Yes, there can be a need to seek and gain consensus: If there's an agreement on a talk page not to add XYZ, then somebody wanting to add XYZ needs to persuade people to change their minds. But I don't see anything like this on this talk page. What am I missing, Scope creep? -- Hoary (talk) 21:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, Hoary, edit-warring is always disruptive, isn't it? The COI editor warred with the bot and then with me. The page has an interminable and tedious history of COI editing, and this latest bout seems just to be more of the same. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Hoary, I don't think I have spoke to you before. It is good to meet you! The article has been fairly fought over these last few weeks and months, and when I looked at it, it was clearly a bunch of promotional language that was added, like we must be emotionally touched to spur us into action. It may be a quote, but the whole purpose of it was to WP:PUFF it out. There is no mistaking the pattern, having seen it time and time again, in the last 2 years or so. The message I left, was more disruptive from a global Wikipedia perspective, as the time I had was going to be used on my Alan Craft article, which still needs several hours on it, was spent here to read the article and remove promotional content, which clearly violates WP:PUFF. Even the new opening sentence in the lede supports that assertion. Sure, it is not contingent on the filing editor to come to the talk page to obtain consensus at the start of the edit, generally in any circumstances, unless it is an update consensus mechanism in place, like an RFC, but the article was already reverted, and I would expect any editor in good standing, if that is their plan, to come here and find consensus. But their only plan is to puff it out, and still is. scope_creep (talk) 22:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, Scope creep, much of what was added could have been promotional. But to me, that doesn't make it promotional. A promotional aroma should bring suspicion, yes; but one had better think thrice before declaring that an editor's only plan is to do such and such.

You seem to be saying that whatever diverts you from work on your preferred article is thereby disruptive. Well, yes, whatever disrupts your plans is disruptive for you; but it's a big leap from that to saying that an edit disrupts Wikipedia.

Let's see whether/how Samsonsegg responds to the various questions addressed to them. -- Hoary (talk) 23:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello Hoary, I replied in the chain above, and will reply to the question below, below. Best -- Samsonsegg

COI?

Samsonsegg, it has been suggested (above and elsewhere) that you have some relationship with the subject of this article. Do you? And if you do, what is it? -- Hoary (talk) 22:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Hoary -- No relationship with the subject of the article, I just noticed an oddly deficient page here. I was looking forward to adding images as well, but that seems to be wrapped up in copyright protection laws so I never actually got involved with that. I am a bit surprised by the response so far as I thought I had referenced very diligently etc. Best -- Samsonsegg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsonsegg (talk • contribs) 11:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC) (Justlettersandnumbers Scope creep)

Hi Samsonsegg, That's good. I'm glad. Sorry if if there has been any inconvenience for you. Please ensure what you add is not promotional in nature. I noticed that refs from a blog have been added, e.g. https://lens.blogs.nytimes.com. They are not considered a reliable source. scope_creep (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi scope_creep, I only used that reference as evidence that his work had been featured by the NY Times, but yes, happy to remove it (perhaps it is not even sufficient evidence of that anyway). Thank you for the piece of advice. Is there anyway we can revert back to my original edit as the new starting point for alterations? I think that the original which has survived the warring is clearly sub-par for many reasons. Best, Samsonsegg