User talk:Artandimage

Welcome to Wikipedia!
- Welcome-

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Valdir Cruz, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Arshad.mohammed18 (talk) 09:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Re:wikipedia article not showing up in google search results
Thank you Artandimage for your post over to my talk page. I really appreciate your concern in asking me help. I am sure this is your article over Wikipedia i.e, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valdir_Cruz. This Article will be viewed over to Google Search Page once the traffic gets over to this page. So, when people more and more visit this page then, there are chances that this page might be showed on to the Google Search Engine. Further more if you have any quries related to this please, post on to my Talk Page.I hope i answered the question rightly. — Preceding signed comment added by Arshad.mohammed18 (talk • contribs)

Can I request another editor's help in reviewing a page I edited?
I just worked on Neil Selkirk (a British-born American photographer) whose links were broken and the entry was scant. I want to make sure the entry meets Wikipedia criteria, and, if so, to remove the flags. Artandimage (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Artandimage

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tracy Miller has been accepted
 Tracy Miller, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! SwisterTwister  talk  03:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Tracy_Miller help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kathy Ruttenberg has been accepted
 Kathy Ruttenberg, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! SwisterTwister  talk  05:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Disambiguation link notification for April 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kathy Ruttenberg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Avenue. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Valdir Cruz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paraná ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Valdir_Cruz check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Valdir_Cruz?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Diane Arbus
Hi. Thank you for your contributions to the Diane Arbus article. However I stripped back some of what you added to the lead section. The lead section should be a succinct summary of what is described in the rest of the article, in 4 paragraphs. Keeping it short helps readers with not enough time for the whole article to digest it. With your additions about various group exhibitions it had grown too bloated. -Lopifalko (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much Lopifalko! I appreciate your expert guidance. I am now working on verifying all the book publication information and the exhibition information. I added some technical details to the Photographic Career section to mention what cameras she was using at various stages. I am also double-checking all the sources for accessibility and accuracy throughout.

Artandimage (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi. As you know, you removed the following, which I reverted: "A 2005 article called the estate's allowing the British press to reproduce only fifteen photographs an attempt to "control criticism and debate."" and "Brian Sewell dismissed Arbus's work in 2005 as unremarkable and as having gained prominence partly because of her suicide, but as "worth a second glance."" Yet your edit summary only mentioned removing the source: "Removed references that could not be verified due to permanent dead link". Can you explain why you are removing this sourced content please? -Lopifalko (talk) 19:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi. I removed those two because the link is dead and I cannot find any way to verify what it says. So sorry if that's not right. What is the protocol? Artandimage (talk) 19:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Lopifalko. I researched Wikipedia rules and now understand that dead links are permitted. I will use the way back machine to try to find the article, retain the content, and remove the dead links. Thank you. Artandimage (talk) 23:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I expect "bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes" means Internet Archive has already been tried. I looked and the source does not support the former quote but does support the latter quote. Haven't access to it right now... -Lopifalko (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi. I am impressed you could find the source. I am trying to do so as well in order not to paraphrase in favor of direct quotes. Thank you for your careful work. 24.168.61.153 (talk) 02:05, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Here -Lopifalko (talk) 09:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi. I am concerned about the racist undertones in this article ("Why are we, the public, made the victims of an insidious political correctitude of sorts that compels us to hold the photographer in the same protected high regard as, say, women sculptors, black painters and Pakistani watercolourists") and the author's inaccurate handle on the facts. Diane Arbus said, "I hated painting and I quit right after high school" so to say that she had a "false start as a conventional painter" is a wild mischaracterization. He also suggests that because she "falls into three subcategories - she was Jewish, subject to depression and, best of all, a suicide" her work has been noticed. He inaccurately starts her fame after her death, implying that her suicide caused a public to notice her ("Arbus slashed her wrists in July 1971. Within a year her work was selected to represent America in the Venice Biennale, the Museum of Modern Art in New York mounted an encyclopaedic retrospective exhibition, and the first monograph was published. She was thus immediately recognised not only as an artist, but as one of America's most important artists in any medium") when in fact she had already been widely published in magazines and had been one of three photographers included in MoMA's 1967 New Documents exhibition, along with Garry Winogrand and Lee Friedlander. It was this exhibition that propelled Diane Arbus into the spotlight. My question to you is, given this author's clear bias and looseness with the facts, is it appropriate to quote this amateur critic? Wouldn't it be more enlightening to quote more astute detractor? 24.168.61.153 (talk) 13:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This post is from Artandimage. Forgot to sign in! Sorry! Artandimage (talk) 13:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The WP article on Sewell quotes the description of him as "Britain's most famous and controversial art critic" from the Evening Standard, so he is not an "amateur critic". But I agree with your wider point (thank you for making the case) and agree that we should find a "more astute detractor". Let's remove that latter quote then. However I hope the article can retain the former quote, "control criticism and debate", because I have read this before (I will find sources)—for example see this brief mention of it: "the famously controlling Arbus estate who, as Schultz put it recently, "seem to have this idea, which I disagree with, that any attempt to interpret the art diminishes the art."" -Lopifalko (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Great and I am in complete agreement. I kept the first quote in any case and just added a note about common practices re: photos for media use in the U.S. to provide context. I will remove Sewell in that location and use the link you suggest there instead. I will also remove his other comment in Critical Reception and replace with direct quote from Susan Sontag, a respected critic and well-known detractor. I would appreciate your review when I finish by end of day tomorrow. Kind thanks.Artandimage (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Pepe Soho.png
Thanks for uploading File:Pepe Soho.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ron h jones (Talk) 01:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Ronhjones. I have forwarded a letter from the subject of the photo to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.Artandimage (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

April 2019
Hello Artandimage. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are  required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Artandimage. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. SmartSE (talk) 16:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello Smartse. I have no financial stake in the article and I am not a paid advocate. I'm very eager to help create a neutral, factual article and welcome your input as to any mistakes or misjudgments in tone or content that are causing concern.

Artandimage (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)