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)

Justlettersandnumbers Was this the issue you were thinking of when you said that the institution did not exist at the time? (Your recent edit)... North East London Polytechnic is actually the correct name I believe for the time in question. Samsonsegg (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2018 (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)

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, 0.82em 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)
 * Yes indeed,, 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 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, 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 Hoary, Justlettersandnumbers, 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 (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

May I request that my edit be reinstated for the above reasons and then amended gradually where appropriate? Samsonsegg (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

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 edit as the new starting point for alterations? The original which has survived the warring is clearly sub-par for many reasons. Best, Samsonsegg  —Preceding undated comment added 14:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Revert the article. Also please sign your comments with ~ . The system will convert them into your full signature. scope_creep (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks scope_creep. Unfortunately undoing has been blocked by the 3-revert rule and I'm not sure I have the willpower to do it manually again! Thank you for all your advice though. Samsonsegg (talk) 15:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * scope_creep, lens.blogs.nytimes.com is not a blog in the normal sense of the word. It's a column published by a respected news organization (or perhaps I should say a news organization that's respected by the reality-based community). For various purposes, though not all, it may indeed be cited. Please see WP:NEWSBLOG. -- Hoary (talk) 22:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Well that's good to know, Samsonsegg. &para; Let's reintroduce what you introduced but was then cut -- but let's do so carefully. To this end, I have already reintroduced the list of exhibitions. This was, after all, in chronological order -- unlike the reverse chronological (and thus unencyclopedic) order of the existing list -- and every item within it came with [what looked like] a source. Two items within the list looked as if they might well refer to the same one exhibition, and sure enough they did. Please see this edit of mine. Let's get this list of exhibitions done right: for example, a reference should not just have a bare link; it should instead specify the title, date, website etc of the reference as well as its URL. &para; When the list of exhibitions is done well (but not before), let's reintroduce another chunk. &para; Yes, any attempt to add one or more photos by Flach is almost certainly doomed to failure unless very well thought out indeed. I suggest that you forget about this goal until the text in this article is fuller and better. Then, IFF you still have time and energy, you can think of legitimate ways to add photos. (It is possible.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Hoary Sounds like a plan! Thank you for your voice of reason. Samsonsegg (talk) 11:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Book information
Back in March, some IP wrote above:

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

To this, Spintendo responded:


 * All of these titles are already listed in the article. Adding the international editions is irrelevant, as the listing of comparison-type information such as pricing and/or various available editions is not recommended, per WP:NOTACATALOG.

This surprises me. WP:NOTACATALOG presumably refers to item 5, "Sales catalogues", within "Wikipedia is not a directory". This is barely relevant to a straightforward list of editions of a book. (It does indeed talk about price information, but nobody has proposed adding this. It says nothing directly about different editions.) The article currently says that Equus (for example) is/was published in London and NYC (and thus by implication for Britain and the US and perhaps other areas) by Abrams. However, this English-language Wikipedia is not intended either (A) only for people living in Britain or the US or (B) only for people who prefer reading in English to reading in any other language. It strikes me as appropriate and indeed helpful if the article provides information about publication of Equus in Germany, France, etc; and likewise for the other books. This is what's done for numerous other photographers here: see for example the list of Martin Parr's books (largely the work of Lopifalko).

Spintendo, has one of us perhaps misread or misinterpreted something? -- Hoary (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Or see, for another example, Graham Greene bibliography, where fortunately there is no attempt to list the many thousands of individual editions and translations of his work (which of course was literature not photography, but what does that change?). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've just now seen it. It doesn't impress me. We don't see the place(s) of first publication or the publisher(s). As you point out, Greene's books have had very many editions; this makes a list of his publications very different from a list of Flach's. The list of Parr's is a lot better than the list of Greene's, in my (slightly self-congratulatory) opinion (I contributed to the former), and I think that it's a pretty good model for this article. -- Hoary (talk) 13:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh, I missed one part. What does that change, you wonder. Dismally few of us are about as keen to read a novel in one language as we are to read it in another. (And, inexcusably, I'm in the feeble majority.) With photobooks, it's different, because after all the photos are the thing. Fresh from a major exhibition of Josef Koudelka's work, I wanted to buy his book Gypsies. The latest edition of this had just gone out of print and the used book merchants were busily pretending it was "collectible" and jacking up the prices. I dug around in Worldcat for the titles and ISBNs of recent editions in other languages, was delighted to find that Gitanos (published in Spain, in Spanish) was still in print, and ordered a copy pronto. (Similarly, I also got Go No Go by Ad van Denderen [wretched article!] in German rather than English. And there've been others.) Do you think my (anglophone) interests in alternatives to English are bizarre, or indeed that en:WP articles needn't worry about readers for whom English is merely a second language? -- Hoary (talk) 13:57, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Exhibitions
So, we now have a list of exhibitions. How many of them are: I suggest removing those that do not meet these basic criteria. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * supported by an independent reliable source?
 * confirmed by that source to have been solo shows?
 * in a museum or or other major institution?


 * Certainly the source(s) for an exhibition should be credible and should say what we say or imply that they say. Beyond that, however.... Justlettersandnumbers, a couple of questions. First, if a gallery or minor museum states that it exhibited such and such by Flach at such and such a time, do you think it likely that the gallery or minor museum is either mistaken or lying? Secondly, this basic criterion that the show must have been in a museum or other major institution is one that's unfamiliar to me; where did you find it? -- Hoary (talk) 13:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I assumed that the lists of talks and exhibitions were removed for being simply 'not the done thing', i.e. not fitting with strict guidelines for subheadings. But I do now see that it was an issue with referencing that was raised. What exactly was the issue? Each talk/exhibition was referenced... Perhaps JzG could also shed some light on this? Samsonsegg (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Captive animals
Hi Justlettersandnumbers, I thought that my explanation for removing those two sentences was fairly clear and fair. What was it that you disagreed with? Best, Samsonsegg (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Justlettersandnumbers, would you mind engaging with the discussion before reverting etc.? I am trying to do this all with clear explanations so that we can all discuss and then agree on what is best moving forward. Best, Samsonsegg (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey,, what makes you think I need or want to dance to your tune? If you haven't received an answer to a question within a two or three weeks, you might perhaps consider repeating the question; but after two hours? What exactly is the hurry?
 * You are edit-warring in the article, and I strongly suggest that you stop.
 * To answer your question: despite your claim not to be associated in any way with Flach, you nevertheless appear to believe that you have a better knowledge of his career than an academic independent reliable source that deals in detail with it. How does that work? What independent reliable sources have you drawn on for your statement that he has "done wildlife photography throughout his career", and why do you not cite them? What makes you so sure that he does not – for example – have a studio in Shoreditch, as the source says, and as is stated in the content that you have repeatedly tried to remove?
 * Yes, I agree that keeping animals in captivity is fairly reprehensible other than in a few cases of necessity; I wouldn't call it "evil", though.
 * You have denied any connection to Flach, but you now have 67 edits to this project, every one of which relates to him. Notwithstanding good faith, and whatever the actual truth, your edit history belies your statement. Would you care to clarify? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Justlettersandnumbers, sorry I never intended to hurry you. It's just that you are reverting my edit with no explanation when I carefully provided a clear explanation for the edit. I'm happy for you to disagree with me, obviously, I just want you to explain why rather than deleting so we can collaboratively reach a good page. Please don't get angry. I'm not playing any tune. And as for dancing, it takes two to tango! I am not personally interested in edit-warring. Samsonsegg (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, Shoreditch, yes, all sources indicate he works in Shoreditch. I have never tried to remove that information, I don't think it's in question. (If I have at some point, it was in error, so I'm sorry, but more likely maybe it was JzG?) Samsonsegg (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Captivity: Indeed, though our feelings aside, it is not a statement supported by the source anyway and therefore does seem misleading (as our reactions - evil/sinister/reprehensible - might suggest). Samsonsegg (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

If we Google search an early book of Flach's e.g. 'Equus' we can see lots of pictures in wild areas. Of course, however, it is cumbersome to source evidence for this from each point of his career (and so I did not suggest that we should include the phrase, "done wildlife photography throughout his career" in the article). Therefore, I suggested that the simpler summation in the opening to the fourth paragraph - 'Flach is known for his wildlife photography as well as his studio-based portraiture and abstracts' - covers that area just fine and is clearer and essentially risk-free. Samsonsegg (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a connection to the man, but it is suggested that beginners get started on one page only, and this seemed a good place to start. I was, in fact, about to propose make a foray into a Wiktionary page, but now I am back here again! Samsonsegg (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Please let's edit slowly and calmly. If you would like to reinstate those sentences, just make a small case for it. Samsonsegg (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Article left with broken refs
Samsonsegg, while your here, can you please stop knackering, as in breaking the article references. That is the third time I have fixed them. scope_creep (talk) 14:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

scope_creep Sure, sorry, still fairly new. Samsonsegg (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Broken refs again!. I have left a message on your talk page Samsonsegg. Hope it helps. scope_creep (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

scope_creep I am sorry! Thank you so much for that I will read through it carefully. All the best Samsonsegg (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

A suggestion
I've a suggestion to make here. This man takes remarkable photographs, and really deserves a decent Wikipedia article. If the various connected contributors would just leave it alone for a while, there is some small chance that sooner or later a disinterested Wikipedia editor will think the page worth doing some work on. That might result in some real improvement, which I for one would be very pleased to see. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, just made a very basic edit to this article, but it was removed. Not sure why? As you have mentioned this article seems to be very short and lacking for Tim’s position in the photography world. As I own many of his books, I wanted to improve this - presumed being a “fan” of his work doesn’t mean I have a COI? Wanted to clear this up before improving the article as you’ve suggested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OutwoodKirk (talk • contribs) 10:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The reason why your text entry was removed is it's promotional. If you had stuck with the Guardian reference, and making your text less promotional, it would have survived.  scope_creep Talk  13:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You need to make the article a proper biography, starting with his early life, why he got into this career, then build it up with appropriate sources. The entry for National Geographic, which is prestiguous obviously, instead of trumpeting it, in a promotional manner, you would put the entry in place as in ...  In 1996 Flach published a photograpgh in National Geographic and so on. In the lede (top) you would publish Flach published to National Geographic (if it was the pinnacle of this career). In this way, it is proper biography of his life and a bio which adheres to WP:BIO, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:ADVERTISING. Here is David Bailey. This article should be of a similar or near size, if possible. And if you can get hold of public domain image, all the better.  scope_creep Talk  13:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Current positions and academic awards

 * What I think should be changed (include citations): Add 'Current positions held and academic awards' section and add the following

2013: Honorary Fellowship | British Institute of Professional Photography (BIPP) – Admitted in the category of Fine Art (Registered number 12393).

2013: Honorary Doctorate | Norwich University of the Arts, in recognition of his work and achievement in the field of photography.

2013: Honorary Fellow of the Royal Photographic Society (HonFRPS) for his contribution to photography

2019 -: Current President of the Association of Photographers (AOP) having served as Chair on the AOP Awards Committee for many years.


 * Why it should be changed: These are important academic achievements and photography awards. Particularly the presidency of the AOP, as it is an influential photography association.


 * References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Ewest436 (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I've implemented this change, except: the standard is to represent someone's recognition and awards, not the just those that are current, so the heading I've chosen reflects this. The first citation doesn't really say anything about his fellowship so I've cut down some detail. It can be put back if you provide a better source. For the RPS fellowship, we prefer not to use Youtube as a source but I found a textual substitute. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC)