User talk:Foxglovesi

Foxglovesi, you are invited to the Teahouse!
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.192.76.8.74 (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

October 2021
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Brailes. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion.   ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:47, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

It is not advertising. How have you determined it was to advertise something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxglovesi (talk • contribs) 19:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The url on the watermark on each image. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

How is that advertising? I literally followed the format of another image which had the exact same thing? Is what they are doing also advertising? what makes it that I am advertising? I simply included the link so people could message me about copyright etc. if the image was of a computer and I had my business web address plastered on it then sure? These are images I took time taking as I wanted to contribute of unrelated things to my business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxglovesi (talk • contribs)


 * All of the copyright information is included with the file, and by uploading you're agreeing to a certain license, which is outlined when you upload. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

And your point is? Did you miss the part where I said I literally followed the way other images were formatted? I spent time and money getting images of my local area for the wiki pages and now I'm being told I was advertising somehow because I included my web address in there like the other images have? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxglovesi (talk • contribs)
 * Could you direct me to the other watermarked images we're using in articles? Also, please sign your posts with ~ at the end of the message. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * So, a few questions/points:
 * Which image were you following the format of, and where is it used? In all my years editing this website I've never seen an article on a major British town illustrated primarily by a photo with a massive "courtesy of bob's chip shop" watermark. Which existing images in Stratford-upon-Avon, Shipston-on-Stour or Brailes have any kind of watermark at all, let alone a massive bold 100% opacity one?
 * If you were donating these images "because you wanted to contribute" why did you assign the copyright to, and watermark them as being from, your commercial business rather than doing it personally? Why on earth would a computer repair shop have anything to do with aerial photography that you're doing to get involved with Wikipedia?
 * Why did you move other existing images out of the infobox and put your images first in the lists of images?
 * Copyright information goes on the file's description page, not the image itself. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

1. It didn't say courtesy of anybody. It's my business I do drone photography from. At least attempt top argue in good faith? This isn't something I have done??? so you're telling me no images on wikipedia have a watermark? Its literally the default water mark from Adobe light room and its barely visible at all. here it is for reference on a page:

how do you consider this watermark too big? I await your answer.

2. It's just my website, a way for people to contact me. I do commercial drone photography and computer repairs? so what? What on earth makes you the arbitrator of what I can have on my website that people can use to get in touch with me?

3. I did that once and I put said image back in the article. I thought it better represented the town? It's also an image that is like 20 years old?

I have spent time and money attempting to contribute to places in my local area and you marked it as spam/ deletion and reverted it without any recourse? Foxglovesi (talk) 21:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Foxglovesi, I am afraid you are violating Wikipedia policies. Because this is an encyclopaedia, it cannot also be a way to advertise a business (or, indeed, a non-profit or a cause). Presenting facts neutrally is one of our fundamentals, and we are quite strict about conflict-of-interest editing, which includes any kind of promotion, not just being paid to edit. I, and I'm sure others including the IP editor and, do appreciate your desire to help improve the encyclopaedia; that's why we all spend time, effort, and yes in some cases money working on it. I think you're right, the drone shot of the theatre showing the tower as well as the streetfront is a useful addition to the Stratford article, now that you've removed the watermark. But the watermark is advertising; you say yourself that it's "a way for people to contact me". (And I don't buy that it's the default setting on software you're using; you're responsible for your use of that tool, whether you turn off that watermarking for files you upload here or crop it out of the image first.) There's no place for that on Wikipedia. Nobody should be editing here for the recognition, and it defaces the encyclopaedia. You've been asked a couple of times now to provide the examples of images with such watermarks that made you think it was ok; is it possible that you didn't see them on Wikipedia, but somewhere else? In particular, you've transferred all your images to Commons, which has a specific policy against watermarks.


 * You've also put a copyright notice in the description line on your uploads. I don't think you realise that files on Commons are required to be free to reuse for any purpose, including commercial; you cannot reserve copyright on them, only impose limited conditions such as requiring a statement about who took the photo. Please read c:Commons:Licensing, one of the links in the welcome template that was put on your talk page on Commons; this page linked from there talks about the limited restrictions allowed. But you are explicitly allowing free use of an image when you make it available on Commons; Commons does not host copyright-restricted images. Your images are being discussed for deletion on Commons, here, but if you did not mean to allow free reuse for any purpose, including commercially, you need to request deletion yourself.


 * Frankly, it also doesn't look good that you have shoved existing images down to place yours at the top of articles / in the infobox. And reverting the IP to reinstate your images is edit warring, which is also against our policy. You may not realise how focussed on advertising these two things make you look. Yours are not necessarily the best images. Your edits are being discussed at a noticeboard; see the top section on this page. You may want to go there as well as responding here, but I recommend you first look at the policy pages that I've linked. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:24, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I "shoved" images which has barely any relevance to the article. For example I changed the Brailes main image of the church to one that showed the entire village. How isn't that more relevant?

I don't think you understand that you can still add who the image was taken by in the form of a link in the description without "claiming copyright" (whatever that means). I do own the copyright still of my image even under a creative commons license? I have no idea what your issue could possibly be with having who took the photo in the description. Again it seems like bad faith on your part considering you don't actually know what you're talking about. let me guess, I'll re-upload my images without a watermark and there will be some other reason for you to remove them? After all my image of RSC tower has now been reverted no less than TWICE despite not having a watermark. This place is an absolute farce. Foxglovesi (talk)

Welcome!
Welcome!

Hello, Foxglovesi, and welcome to Wikipedia! I have noticed that you are fairly new! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. I also see that some of your recent edits, such as the ones to the page Stratford-upon-Avon, show an interest in the use of images and/or photos on Wikipedia.

Did you know that ...
 * ...Wikipedia has a very stringent image use policy?
 * ...most images from Flickr, online news websites, and other web sources are copyrighted?
 * ...Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously?
 * ...freely-licensed images should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, a central location for images where they can be used on all Wikipedia projects?
 * ...we recommend that new users use our "files for upload" process – at least until you get the hang of things?

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type  on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Theroadislong (talk) 12:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * Manual of Style

October 2021
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  13:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)