User talk:Jamesmcardle/Archive 5

A barnstar for you!
Mirka was delightful to watch and listen to, always with a mischievous twinkle in her eye! Hopefully some photos of her art will soon become available. In the meantime i've added another external link that showcases some. Best wishes, JennyOz (talk) 11:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!
Dear Jamesmcardle, thank you for the translation :-). Kind regards, --Gyanda (talk) 12:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

=

Hello, I would be very grateful if you could accept the changes in the Polish artist's profiles Paweł Kowalewski. Thank you for your help! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pawe%C5%82_Kowalewski https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pawe%C5%82_Kowalewski https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pawe%C5%82_Kowalewski — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ojdobrzejuz (talk • contribs) 09:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 27
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lisa Larsen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Senator McCarthy ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Lisa_Larsen check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Lisa_Larsen?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 15
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Doreen Spooner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yves Saint Laurent ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Doreen_Spooner check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Doreen_Spooner?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Art Almanac
Some of the content you included in the above article appears to have been copied from https://web.archive.org/web/20120213163000/http://www.art-almanac.com.au/index.php?c=aboutus. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * fixed

Non-free rationale for File:February 1953 Modern Photography.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:February 1953 Modern Photography.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Clarice Beckett
An editor by the name of "HappyWaldo" has taken an interest in the above article. He eliminated half the paintings I recently inserted and made the others the size of postage stamps, claiming that was "standard thumb size". I put them back in a different style layout. The man has a history of questionable edits and edit wars. As you thanked me for them and you've put quite a bit of effort into the article, I thought you might be interested in his actions. WQUlrich (talk) 03:59, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It does seem as though Mr. Waldo is determined to have the last word here for some reason. At least there's a gallery, and the captions are better. If you're happy, it's a go. WQUlrich (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Normally I don't go back to an article more than once (to make sure I didn't goof up), precisely because I need to watch my blood pressure! WQUlrich (talk) 06:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the appreciation.
Hi James, thank you for the appreciation. Although it may have just been a simple button click. But it means a lot to me. Also, I checked out your User page and like how you have the articles list. I used your concept to clean up my messy User Page. Thank you once again! --Krazio (talk) 17:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Walkabout Cover Nov 1934.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Walkabout Cover Nov 1934.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Walkabout Cover Nov 1934.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Walkabout Cover Nov 1934.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Mitra_Tabrizian
I'm sure your actions were well-meaning, what you read diverted and edit to restore an unsourced birthdate to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitra_Tabrizian

While I understand that you are not an OTRS agent, I'm including a link to the ticket for my reference: ticket:2018101210003154

I'm not at liberty share the contents of discussion without permission but I'll reiterate that the birthdate is not supported by a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphilbrick (talk • contribs) 13:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Edna Walling self-portrait.jpeg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Edna Walling self-portrait.jpeg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:51, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

great
to see the photographers articles progress, thanks for your work! and take care of bios that have thin WP:RS - please ask if you run short - there is always trove - well worth checking for extra at any time..

fantastic - that keeps the notability doubters at bay (usually) - thanks JarrahTree 10:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

serendipity
you cannot plan things like that... either it works out or it doesnt...

very very true - what is even more imponderable is the attitude as well, doesnt matter if i have 2 bob watch shoot and dump, or a squillion dollar piece of equipment, the eye and mind of the photographer is something that is much more difficult to equate to the metric obsessed evaluation thingo... in some cultures the 'learning' of looking at things can be very very different to the point that what constitutes a valid item in one - there is no one size fits all as one finds incessantly insisted upon in so many aspects of this goldfishbowl JarrahTree 02:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 16
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Le Groupe des XV, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Laval and Sabine Weiss ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Le_Groupe_des_XV check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Le_Groupe_des_XV?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Walkabout (magazine), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arthur Groom ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Walkabout_%28magazine%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Walkabout_%28magazine%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Exhibitors in The Family of Man has been nominated for deletion
Category:Exhibitors in The Family of Man, which you created, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Bendigo
Hello, thanks for getting in touch. I have added a modern photo of downtown Bendigo with the fountain. Hopefully this is a happy compromise. The history section does need some expanding, however I think the details you've added on the fountain and its design belong in either the architectural heritage section, or the parks and gardens section. - HappyWaldo (talk) 02:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 13
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Antonin Personnaz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Basque Country.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

About coordinate
You recently reverted my edit on Christine Abrahams on removing coordinates. Why is that? How can a person have any coordinates? Please, explain. ~ A. Shohag (pingme||Talk) 04:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 31
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Christine Abrahams Gallery, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Steven Spurrier.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Gallery A

 * Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from http://nationalgallery.gov.au/Research/pdf/MS7_FindingAid.pdf, which is not released under a compatible license. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, some of the content had to be removed and I paraphrased some. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa (talk) 12:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear Diannaa, Without reverting, I cannot be sure that what you have removed from Gallery A is actually copied from https://nga.gov.au/research/pdf/ms7_findingaid.pdf. I cited the document. It provides useful information on Gallery A not found elsewhere. It cites papers held in NGA that I cannot access (from which the writer of the finding aid may have copied) and I am not aware of having copied and pasted anything from it. Can you show me please what that material was that you removed or paraphrased, or show how to find it without reverting please? Sorry to put you to this trouble, but I am puzzled to find myself accused of copyright violation but most importantly concerned that information has been lost in this process. Regards, Jamesmcardle(talk) 22:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have temporarily undone the revision deletion so you can view. Please see this report which shows the overlapping material.— Diannaa (talk) 23:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for replying and fr your diligence.That reassures me that no exhibitions have been removed. The copyvio check of course turns up so much because the overlaps are names of artists, galleries etc and really my copying is minimal and something I'd have changed since the article is by no means finished. However you did delete mention of Meadmore's directorship - a fact we'll known for which suppose I can find other reference and which I shall reinsert in different paraphrasing, and it is important that they showed Australian and American art (also removed) given the Blue Poles controversy. I will keep using the Finding Aid list judiciously though its summary in several cases is inaccurate according to other sources. Perhaps in future you could just send me a note rather than just reverting please? Will save us both time Jamesmcardle(talk) 00:09, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I did re-word most of the content for you - if there's something important that I removed accidentally please go ahead and re-add it as long as it's properly paraphrased it's not a problem.— Diannaa (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

On Solar camera
That's a lot of interesting stuff. But I'd feel better if I could understand your sources and the reasoning behind the points that they (or you) are making. Can you point out sources more specifically? Maybe online versions if we're lucky? Or some quotes in support of the points? Dicklyon (talk) 04:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you Dicklyon for checking Solar camera. I'm attempting to do as you request with the citations....a work-in-progress. There is plenty of reference in newspapers and British Journal of Photography to the advantage of using cartes-de-visite negatives as compared to large format and for the latter I have included as an example Julia Margaret Cameron's issues with exposure times with her extra-large plates. There are however complaints about the poor quality of some prints from the solar enlarger as being 'patches of dark and light', so one can imagine the enlargements were taken too far by some...still working on getting good references for that issue...and that led to the widespread retouching and complete painting-over of life-size solar camera enlargements. I'll go back into those newspaper articles again and see if any have article titles and include them, though many do not, however, page numbers are included in my citations. As for online material, I'm not sure that there's anything reliable other than Leggatt etc. While Woodward seems to the first to patent a solar enlarger, there appear to be some European prior inventions of it - Jamin and others, but scant detail and evidence. Thank you for all you do on photography! Jamesmcardle(talk) 06:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's keep the conversation in one place (I copied your remarks from my talk page to above, and indented, as is conventional).
 * You have access to a BJP collection? I'm jealous.
 * My particular concern is the unjustified implication that larger format implies longer exposure and less depth of field, so I'm wondering exactly what the sources say about that. Ideally, bigger plates would have a higher speed rating, but if they're assuming they don't then they'd need a larger aperture diameter or a longer exposure.  Don't need both though.  See my "outside the box" way of thinking about this. Dicklyon (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I hope I don't make that implication, you may be reading between the lines...the historical reference here from the report in the 1876 BJP is to 'sharpness'...vague yes, and applicable to issues of subject movement as much as to 'depth of field' which is a term absent in the BJP article and this WP entry. I understand the theory you expound in your very thorough paper (and thank you for directing me to it - it'll solve some arguments) around circles of confusion and distinctions of 'depth of field' and 'depth of focus'...the much-cited contemporaneous arguments around JMC's 'out-of-focus' pictures presents a corollary in relation to expectations of 'sharpness' found in the BJP article quoted. JMC's exposure times are on record, and comparing the shallow focus in her photographs and other examples of extremely large format for contact printing  with the more 'instant' exposures and all-over sharpness in countless CdV's, was certainly done. Whatever the causes – and no doubt they are several – the BJP photographers' perceptions of 'sharpness', scientifically correct or not, was evidently  part of the motivation to use the smaller negative and blow it up, which is the point in relation to the widespread use of the solar camera 160 years ago. We deal here with history in relation to a long-dead instrument. Can you suggest a phrasing that covers that sense better without raising the hackles of the dedicated scientist of optics?
 * Some BJP issues are available in full with OCR on archive.org. That's something subscribing to the magazine, as I did for access to the back issues, doesn't give you. Consequently I've since cancelled my expensive subscription. Jamesmcardle(talk) 04:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I just want to make sure that those perceptions are correctly attributed, not stated as objective fact. Thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 05:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can be assured of that, and as I get time I will add other photographers views that agree with that historical perception and account for why, at the time, enlargements were preferred over contact prints from large negatives. This is the exact quote in context in the British Journal of Photography, February 25, 1876, p.92;
 * "The photographic society lately “ planted” at Frankfort-on-the- Maine seems to have taken kindly to the soil, and to be in a very thriving state. Since we mentioned its formation there have been several meetings, at one of which a subject touched upon in last week's number of The British Journal of Photography was discussed, namely, whether with the increase of the size of the objective a correspondingly large and sharp picture might be expected. Tire conclusion arrived at was also similar—that when the aperture is over five inches the expense and unwieldiness of the lens and accompanying camera are not repaid by a proportionate increase in the size and sharpness of the picture obtained; and that it is more practicable to obtain extra-sized pictures by enlarging with a solar camera.."   Jamesmcardle(talk) 10:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ...and here is the full discussion as it appeared in the 'last week's number' referred to above, which you may find interesting, but which for reasons of length I would not include in the article...
 * "THE BRITISH JOURNAL OF PHOTOGRAPHY. February 18, 1876, p.82-3

SOUTH LONDON PHOTOGRAPHIC SOCIETY. "An ordinary meeting of this Society was held on Thursday, the 10th inst., the Rev. F. F. Statham, President, in the chair—a position which, after the reading of the minutes, he vacated in order to read a paper On Magnitude as an Element of Attractiveness in Photography. [See page 78.] The chair, in the interim, was occupied by Mr. William Brooks. Mr. J. T. Taylor said that from an observation in the paper relative to the carte it might be supposed that their President considered it as being the initiative element in the dimensions of photographs. But many years previous to the introduction of cartes portraits of large dimensions bad been produced, the carte being rather a retrogressive step ; for at the time it was introduced direct portraits were taken of dimensions up to eighteen inches. With respect to the exaggeration alleged to be the concomitant or attendant of every effort to produce an enlargement from a small negative the contrary was, in his estimation, the case; for, while it was all but impossible to take a direct portrait on life scale which would be free from exaggeration, the latter was entirely absent in the case of an enlarged picture produced from a suitable cliche of small dimensions. To adduce an extreme instance a few years ago he saw, at the residence of Professor Piazzi Smyth, the Scottish Astronomer-Royal, a transparency in size about ten inches, although of the precise dimensions he was uncertain. But that transparency had been enlarged from a negative of only one inch in size, and, so far as he recollected, it was somewhat more perfect—both with regard to sharpness and soft gradation—than several large pictures of the same subject which had been taken direct. In contrasting photographs with the pictures exhibited at the Royal Academy their President had for the moment lost sight of the fact that pictures of noble dimensions had found a place on the walls of some of the photographic exhibitions. He was very much afraid that the imagined colossal camera and lens desiderated by their President would still have to remain in embryo. Already cameras of enormous dimensions had been constructed, with lenses on a scale commensurate -with the requirements of such cameras; but the objections to their use so far outweighed their advantages that no one now ever thought either of constructing or using them. The proposal to imitate the human eye in the construction of a large lens he might meet by quoting an observation made by Professor Clifford at the Brighton meeting of the British Association. That gentleman stated that no optician of reputation would think of imitating such an optically- imperfect instrument as the human eye; and, viewed merely from the photographic-lens point of view, it was certainly very imperfect. But of whatsoever material—whether glass or fluid-—the lens was composed it should be borne in mind that the dimensions of the image were determined by its focal length, not by its size; although it was doubtless true that, especially in portrait lenses, length of focus must be accompanied with largeness of aperture, in order that sufficient light be transmitted. It was this increase of aperture that militated against success in portraiture, the parts situated on one plane of representation being in focus while all other parts were indistinct. Mr. J. Tulley thought that, owing to the great sensitiveness of plates prepared with gelatine, it might be possible to utilise them in obtaining large direct pictures with lenses closely stopped down, so as to ensure the requisite depth of definition. Mr. Brooks (Chairman pro. tem.) thought photographers were mistaken in using an iron developer in the production of negatives which were to be afterwards used for enlarging, as that gave a greater degree of granularity than when an alkaline pyro. developer was used. With respect to the question of enlarged versus direct pictures, any direct photograph over 15 x 12 he considered quite a mistake. The present mode of lighting studios, too, was a mistake, for it was indeed very seldom that one saw his friend under such conditions of lighting as prevailed in the studio. In connection with the production of enlargements he thought it would bo a good plan if two portrait lenses of similar size were used, one of them placed somewhat behind the other, so that the image which was produced by one should be magnified by the other without having to take a negative as an intermediate condition. Mr. Taylor said he had found that the granularity of the deposited silver, of which a negative was composed, interfered less with the production of a perfect enlargement than did the falling away of the sharpness irrespective of granularity. The optical shortcomings of portrait lenses interfered more prominently than did the chemical constitution of the image. He (Mr. Taylor) then demonstrated, by a diagram on the black board, the impossibility of the production of an enlargement by such an arrangement of lenses as that proposed by the Chairman. [An article on the subject will be found at page 74 of the present number.] Mr. E. W. Foxler corroborated Mr. Taylor’s remarks relative to large portraits having been taken long before the introduction of the carte portrait. For some years previous to that time he had regularly used a large Voigtlander lens for producing portraits eighteen inches in dimensions. Enlarged portraits were certainly more free from distortion than those taken direct, and the most suitable size of negative for producing a good enlargement was one of about five or six inches. Mr. Wilkinson observed that the dimensions and focal length of the lens to be used in producing an enlargement were of no consequence so long as the negative to be enlarged did not exceed the capabilities and scope of the lens. It might, and sometimes with advantage, be allowed to come very far short of those capabilities. Mr. L. Warnerke, referring to a remark made by Mr. Taylor about Professor Piazzi Smyth’s Egyptian views, said that he understood they had been taken by means of a very costly apparatus. Mr. Taylor replied that such an apparatus need not be very costly; the lenses used by Professor Smyth were of the kind well known as locket lenses, the cost of which was not great. After some other remarks a vote of thanks was by acclamation conveyed to the President, who, in reply, observed that his paper had been hastily written to stop a gap for that evening, and he was pleased to find that it had elicited such a hearty discussion. Mr. Warnerke then exhibited a glass tap of a convenient form, which, he said, was sold at a very cheap rate at some of the furnishing shops in Holborn. The meeting was then adjourned." Jamesmcardle(talk) 10:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

MOMAA edit without a reference
Hi there Jamesmcardle : I note you made an edit on 14th May this year at Museum of Modern Art Australia (MOMAA) about a 1958 catalogue that was reviewed in The Age by critic Arnold Shore. Do you have a valid reference for this review, as the reference that you provided does not work? Can you please help ? Matilda Maniac (talk) 09:46, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi - the reference is now in place - Arnold Shore "Modern art in Australia: A Melbourne collection", (review of 'Modern Australian art : a Melbourne collection of paintings and drawings'), The Age, Saturday 04 Oct 1958, p.18 - accessible through Newspapers.com via Wikipedia Library, Cheers, Jamesmcardle(talk) 10:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries ! Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of European Photography for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article European Photography is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/European Photography until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bbb23 (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Warning
Wikipedia explicitly forbids canvassing, and you have been engaged in that, by placing non-neutral messages on the talk pages of other editors. If you continue to do this, you will be blocked from editing. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:European Photo logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:European Photo logo.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 07:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

June 2021
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Andreas Müller-Pohle into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Draft:Andreas Müller-Pohle was copy-pasted to Andreas Müller-Pohle without attribution. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I am here to say about this as well. Recommending a history merge for this case. – robertsky (talk) 15:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Jamesmcardle. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Andreas Müller-Pohle, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Dear Robert,
 * I can comfortably and honestly assure you that I have no conflict of interest here.
 * I am very familiar with CoI rules as the creator of 200 articles and am coming up to 20,000 edits. Andreas Müller-Pohle is in Germany, I am in Australia. We have no direct association other than my having met him once in 1990, to no advantage or favour. I am not being paid to edit. He is not a friend or relation, colleague etc. but he is well-known in international photography circles as editor of European Photography.
 * I had translated the German page European Photography in Jan 2019 which was unjustifiably up for deletion and have since significantly improved it because it is a very important journal that should be in Wikipedia. In the process I emailed the magazine to check accuracy of some of the information and he replied as the editor.
 * I then, without any communication with him, translated from the German and French article on Andreas Müller-Pohle because he is editor of European Photography and as such warrants an entry in the encyclopaedia. You will see that he is a notable artist and publisher.
 * I have not been published in European Photography, nor do I expect or want to be.
 * Contrary to Robertsky's message below, I did not review the article Andreas Müller-Pohle, but merely tagged it in its Talk page.
 * Thank you for any clarification you might provide as to the reason for your perception that I have a conflict of interest. Jamesmcardle(talk) 10:34, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm Robertsky. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Andreas Müller-Pohle, and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

– robertsky (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Dear Robertsky, please check the history of that Talk page. I tagged it with WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Germany, WikiProject Photography / History. I did not rate it in any of those WikiProjects. KylieTastic has edited it but doesn't appear to have rated it either. There was apparently what must have been a Draft of this page created by the red-linked MarcAnder79 on 9 June (seen in the Talk history) but that draft didn't come up in my search on 26 June in creating the page from translations from the German and French. MarcAnder79's draft must since been deleted since there is nothing but what I uploaded on the entry. This is weird and very confusing. Jamesmcardle(talk) 10:50, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , your review was automatic due to your autopatrolled rights. See Special:PermaLink/856145632. Another user had nominated you for it.
 * At the time which I had unreviewed the page, it was done as it seemed that there was no indication that either the draft and the article was translated from de.wiki or fr.wiki, and that the text in both draft and article are so similar, 68% match, to each other. I just further reviewed the history, and realised that the history of de.wiki article got carried over to en.wiki. I wonder if it was due to the Content Translation tool. In any case, I think you have cleared up any misunderstandings above. Cheers! – robertsky (talk) 13:45, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Monique Jacot
I found her in the MFAH collection. It's chock full of photographers. --- Possibly &#9742; 23:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Much appreciated @Possibly - will browse the collection - thank you for your work! Jamesmcardle(talk) 23:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Great stuff
I've just spent a great hour reading your Australian art biographies. Fascinating characters and great prose. Many many thanks. No Swan So Fine (talk) 11:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you - lovely to have the compliment from you - it's made my evening! Jamesmcardle(talk) 12:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Buda, Castlemaine
Thank you for fixing Buda (house). I originally just copied from their website as there was no mention on Wikipedia, not even on the Castlemaine page, that Buda existed. I was unsure about editing the page too much due to a potential COI as a volunteer there. I was not asked to make their page. -- ThylacineHunter  (talk) 23:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you User:ThylacineHunter for creating the article, and for your volunteer work - it is a significant heritage site and needed an entry. I don’t think there’s crucial issue with COI as much as copy/paste. I’ll keep hunting down newspaper refs, but if there are any magazine or newspaper articles on the villa at Buda with useful content, it would be handy to reference them…I am not getting much at Trove and am relying on Newspapers.com via Wikipedia Library. The Leviny women could do with entries too, one day. All the best, and keep editing! Jamesmcardle(talk) 00:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * …and…is there a full list of exhibitions and displays held at Buda? - would be wonderful to include those!Jamesmcardle(talk) 00:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll see if I can talk with the house/office staff as to what is in the Buda collection archive. I originally thought may their farther, Earnest, might warrant a page (being a fine silversmith), but didn't think the daughters needed separate pages, as they wouldn't be much more than stubs. As I learn more about the family, I'm starting to think you may be right, they appear to be one of the major families of Castlemaine. It would also be good to get more photos on the page showing off the daughter's art through the house, and the wide range of collected plants in the garden. -- ThylacineHunter  (talk) 03:41, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ... it could also do with an infobox like on Como House or Werribee Park. -- ThylacineHunter  (talk) 03:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Hedda Morrison
Great job, thanks, mate! Oalexander (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)


 * My pleasure Oalexander ! Jamesmcardle(talk) 00:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Nimbus Rooftop Bar
Hi. I note your recent edit to Nimbus Rooftop Bar, in which you described the article as reading like an advertisement. Given the fact I didn't intend to portray it as such, could you please elaborate? Because I'd like to fix any such issues. Sean Stephens (talk) 03:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Sean, yes you have kept a neutral PoV but you indicate in the article nothing notable https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:SPIP&redirect=no about this Bar other than it being on a rooftop, so it appears merely a promotion...see Help:Introduction to editing with Wiki Markup/notability quiz Jamesmcardle(talk) 03:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, I'm a little confused by your reasoning. The general guideline states that a minimum of two secondary sources are required to determine a topic as notable; in this article, there's 5. With that aside, there's nothing that appears promotional; there's a description of the location, key development details, and there's a reception section, with three reliably sourced reviews—as such, there's no reason to label it as advertising. I understand notability guidelines perfectly, but in the interest of impartiality, I'll be seeking a third opinion. Sean Stephens (talk) 08:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's best. I mean no offense to you, but remain unconvinced of the notability of the subject of the article despite the quality of your research and writing, so am happy to abide by a third opinion one way or the other. Believing that you do not have a conflict of interest here, I have removed the 'advertising' template Jamesmcardle(talk) 10:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I do apologise if my initial response was at all strongly worded; reading it back, it does come off a little snarky. And thank you, I do appreciate you doing that. Sean Stephens (talk) 06:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The aforementioned article has been nominated for deletion. Please feel free to express your views on it there if you so desire. Sean Stephens (talk) 09:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

David Beal
Thank you for your wonderful article on David and Dawn Beal.

I was a project manager for IBM in Asia from 1989-2003 and employed Audience Motivation and of course David and Dawn for events in China, Singapore, Bali, Hong Kong etc. We had wonderful times together over the years.

I am wondering how David is doing (I have heard that Dawn has passed) and wonder if you know of any way that I might get in touch with him.

Thanks and best regards.

Tom Murphy --Tom M. (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello Tom, I hear David is increasingly unwell. I’d suggest you try via his website I do hope you are able to get in touch. Jamesmcardle(talk) 21:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Richard W.
I sure hope there can be more work done on the article... JarrahTree 09:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree - recently a much overlooked photographer but influential 1960s-70s particularly. Will get back to him when I have waded thought all the press and seen more of his books. Jamesmcardle(talk) 10:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Museum of Contemporary Art, Brisbane
I saw this new article this morning and thought of you: Museum of Contemporary Art, Brisbane. -Lopifalko (talk) 10:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you, yes as an article on a state gallery it needs some work. Will have a go. Jamesmcardle(talk) 10:48, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

And another new one from the same editor: Institute of Modern Art. -Lopifalko (talk) 08:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 21
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mount Franklin (Victoria), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page C1.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 29
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Julian Smith (photographer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Paton.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Maria-Austria-with-Rolleiflex 1946 Henk-Jonker.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Maria-Austria-with-Rolleiflex 1946 Henk-Jonker.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 08:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Plagiarism
Pointing out that the extensive list of stained glass as well as other material was entirely plagiarised from the book on the subject and used without authority or the slightest acknowledgement or citation on the Christian Waller page. It has since been removed and was in direct contravention of copyright law and Wikipedia's copyright protocols. Invaluable22 (talk) 07:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, your note is in the article history...I thanked you for your edits — I sincerely apologise for any offence and stand admonished. Please check the history - aside from the list of stained glass installations set out in the book, additional references I inserted included Christian Waller Stained Glass: Towards The Light which did not appear before in two previous 2022 edits by others, and I inserted the quotation with attribution. So yes, there was "the slightest acknowledgement or citation." In my corrections, my edits of the list, still in progress of being abbreviated when they were reverted, were in good faith. I am pleased to see you have reinserted the list in a summarised format since, now that it is in the public domain (i.e. in the book); it is invaluable in establishing the true importance of Christian Waller's production in that medium. I copied no "other material" from the groundbreaking book; where used as reference, I was careful that none of the paraphrasing was too close to the original text of Christian Waller Stained Glass.  I am glad to see that you have added other information from the book Christian Waller Stained Glass: Towards The Light. The article as it stood before my and others' edits during August was poor, with many inaccuracies, and still needs improvement - it is good that it is now being amended by an expert on the subject. If you are the writer or publisher of the book however, and as a new Wikipedia editor whose sole edits are in this article, please beware of WP:COI Jamesmcardle(talk) 10:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)