Conceptuel

March 2024

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Xenomorph. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for mentionning, No I haven't made any promotion, the Giger Bar is literally the inside of the Xenomorph, which is very relevant to add in this article, any way to add it in caption? Thank's for your help Conceptuel (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

The names of all the photos that you added have "photographed by Robbie Conceptuel" in them, and as such, they appear to be promoting the photographer "Robbie Conceptuel". Given your username, I need to ask this: are you in any way related to that person? M.Bitton (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I do not see any promotion of the photographer in the article, given the article of the Xenomorph, the photo is the Giger Bar which depicts the inside of a Xenomorph. I really suggest you to visit the H.R. Museum in front of the Giger Museum. Thank you for you notifications, I only contribute when I consider as relevant and really make a real work, thank's for respecting the work of accuracy of others. Thank you Conceptuel (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Your evasive reply confirms what I suspected all along. I will leave a long comment about conflict of interest that I suggest you read. M.Bitton (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

There is no conflict of interest? Please explain yourself here, I would be happy to learn more. I would be happy to see a more representative image of Giger Bar, my goal is only to improve and contribute as good as I can. No conflict of interest, only the most relevant images are added in articles. Thank you for your help on this and thank's to understand and avoid any statements about me. :) Conceptuel (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

You made it about "Robbie Conceptuel", so don't blame anyone else but yourself. M.Bitton (talk) 21:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

What? No this is only the image file name. The image can be changed, it doesn't change anything about the relevance of adding an image. I'm contributing visually, I'm not into any targetted or abusive situations. Thank's for respecting the work and dedication of everyone about sharing representative photos of a famous landmark. Thank you, never wanted to promote anyone by changing an image in an article, the image can be changed easily. Conceptuel (talk) 21:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for respecting the work and dedication of everyone I suggest you do just that as some editors have given a lot to this project and the last they want to see is someone using it to promote themselves. In any case, I suggest you read the notice about "managing conflict of interest" that I left below. I'm done here. M.Bitton (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Can't you just change the image and fix the issue? As my intentions are not self promotion, you can just fix it, I will never change on top of it as Wikipedia is collaborative place. Thank you for your comprehension. Conceptuel (talk) 21:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Image usage in Wikipedia articles should be guided by what is needed, over what the editing photographer has in their collection. The Giger stuff seems like it might be okay here where Wikipedia is lacking a photo of something and no better ones exist on Commons, but you adding your work above those of others seems less useful on more general articles.

Even if it's true that the best possible lead image for Wikipedia's clock tower article is a particular gate tower in Bern, which I'm not sure is the case, you probably have some unconscious bias in deciding whether your photo of it is the best one to use. (From a look at Commons, there are perhaps better ones in its category, such as this straighter shot on a sunnier day by an art historian.) --Belbury (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply which makes me learn everyday, for info this is the Clocktower of Murten, which is called 'Berntor' which means: The tower of Bern, because it faces in direction of Bern (you can email the Murten Museum if needed more info to this landmark). It's the most famous landmark in Murten. This one was made in the 18th century and makes it very relevant to show one from before 18th century to this article where we only see 'modern' types of Clocktowers. I'm happy to share more with knowledge enthusiast! <3

PS* Please update with a more relevant image since now I'm not sure when and where I can contribute on Wikipedia, Happy to learn everyday. Conceptuel (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah, not actually in Bern! I see.

If you think an article is lacking an illustration of a particular period or region, that's fine: just be clearer about that being your reason for adding the image (perhaps mentioning in the caption what particular aspect of the article subject it is illustrating), and look around on Commons for the best possible example photo to use, rather than reaching for your own.

But as a Commons user, thank you for uploading your photos there! Belbury (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Completely got it! Thank you so much for your time here, I will only focus on uploading them on Wikimedia and if they are relevant they will be used, got it! That's what we love in sharing knowledge is that we learn everyday. I hope you'll enjoy the images I'm sharing on Wikimedia :) Conceptuel (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted your image change on fried fish, where you'd replaced an image of a takeaway portion of fish and chips with your own photo of a plated dish with containers of peas and tartar sauce. The text next to that image is about how the dish is a "popular take-away food", and the article's lead image already shows a plate of fish and chips with containers of peas and tartar sauce, so although your photo was good one, I didn't see how its usage was an improvement. There was a similar issue at List of English dishes where your image unnecessarily depicted new elements which weren't mentioned in the adjacent text.

You're always welcome to replace existing photos with your own ones where you genuinely think that they do a better job of illustrating the text, but given the conflict of interest (everyone thinks their own photos are good!) you really need to state your case for making the change in the edit summary. --Belbury (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Conceptuel. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, 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 article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
• 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 Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, I think the images were added on pages where they didn't necessarily belong, but I don't see it as a COI. There is essentially no policy on naming files, Commons:Commons:File_naming#Naming just says "descriptive and accurate". It is perhaps redundant to say "by Robbie Conceptuel" when the file information says "Own work - Conceptuel", but without some identifying information the filename is likely to conflict with other similar photos. Since the filename is only visible when editing the page or clicking the image, it is hard to see it as advertisement or promotion. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 21:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much, is there anything about abusive reverts? My goal is only to share some images in the public domain so everybody can use and enjoy them and so it can be used to improve Wikipedia. My only intentions here. Thank you Conceptuel (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, to be clear, a lot of your additions were kind of stupid, in that they did not make sense for the article. I would say you did a sufficient number of edits that they would constitute mass editing; generally it is better to do one edit and see how it goes before doing more edits of the same nature.

I think the most common way non-technical images are added on Wikipedia is that they are added to Wikimedia Commons and sit for years until a page editor selects the image for use in the article. As your images are on Wikimedia Commons and properly licensed, you have already succeeded in sharing your images. The question is rather whether they are of sufficient quality to replace the images currently in use in the articles. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 21:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your answers! Makes more sense, I'm focusing on uploading them on Wikimedia Commons, hope you enjoy the ones I'm uploading. And before doing any changes on an article on Wikipedia, I will ask someone around before doing it. Always learning! That's what we love! Conceptuel (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

When someone attach their name to various images and then go on to add them to articles, then there is a COI (regardless of whether they are aware of it or not). As for Commons, its own rules don't make much sense as the renaming policy mentions the "promotional names". M.Bitton (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

This talk is closed and resolved by other users already. Thank you to stay professional and benevolant here, thank you :) Conceptuel (talk) 22:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Replacing photos with your own

Again, please leave an edit summary when you replace an existing image with one of your own, saying why you think that your photo is more suitable. You also shouldn't mark these changes as WP:MINOR.

An edit like this replacement seems detrimental for showing less of the building. It's significant that the Freemasons have such a large building in central London.

If you had a good reason for replacing the image, I and other editors cannot be expected to correctly guess what that reason was. If you don't have a good reason beyond wanting to see your own photo on a Wikipedia article, don't replace the image. Belbury (talk) 08:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, yes the photos were replaced because they were taken in 2006 and many had restorations on it since. It is important to keep it updated especially after 18 years. Buildings always change in over 10 years. My photo was taken this month, with higher resolution. Conceptuel (talk) 08:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

What restorations? It's Grade II* listed.

It's worth weighing up what a photo actually shows, against recency and resolution. It's significant that the existing photo shows more of the building on both sides, rather than just the entrance corner. Belbury (talk) 08:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

The photo was updated because of higher resolution and that it was taken in 2012. It's always important to keep knowledge and informations accurate and precise, that includes how recent it is. Thank you. Conceptuel (talk) 08:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

What a picture actually shows is more important than how recently it was taken and how high its resolution is. Belbury (talk) 09:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)