Wikipedia:Help desk

Welcome—ask questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia! (Am I in the right place?)

• For other types of questions, use the search box, see the reference desk or Help:Contents. If you have comments about a specific article, use that article's talk page.
• Do not provide your email address or any other contact information. Answers will be provided on this page only.
• If your question is about a Wikipedia article, draft article, or other page on Wikipedia, tell us what it is!
• Check back on this page to see if your question has been answered.
• For real-time help, use our IRC help channel, #wikipedia-en-help.
• New editors may prefer the Teahouse, a help area for beginners (but please don't ask in both places).

Ask a question

December 15

How long should I wait before submitting another unblock request?

I was disappointed that I had been blocked from editing emailSanta.com, as you can see on my talk page. I appealed the block, but an admin only suggested a harsher punishment. How long should I wait before returning to that topic again? I don't want to upset any more admins and want to be able to edit Wikipedia freely like I used to be able to. I hope it doesn't stay with me for my entire life. Could I request a lighter block (e.g. 1-2 years) instead of an immediate unblock or a permanent block, like the one I have currently? Félix An (talk) 04:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

You probably should not return to the topic. While the admin used a very firm tone, the advice is good. You don't need to edit emailSanta.com or any other page that relates to Santa Claus, and it seems to become a problem when you do. Right now you're only page blocked, which isn't a huge deal. Just explore other parts of Wikipedia, there are countless interesting areas to contribute. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

OK, I guess it's time to throw in the towel then. At least other editors have cleaned up the WP:COI and WP:YESPROMO (and I believe they will continue doing so throughout WP), so it's not necessary for me to edit it anymore (and I probably should focus more on my university work anyways; maybe this block is a signal for me to not distract myself every Christmas with WP 😂). Thank you for your response, and merry Christmas! Félix An (talk) 04:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

You're only blocked from that one singular article. There are almost 7 million articles on here, why don't you just... edit some of those instead?Though I'd avoid anything Santa Claus related because it seems like you're already on thin ice. RachelTensions (talk) 05:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Using AI artwork in articles

Hello. Is there currently any policy about using AI artwork in articles or does it just depend on how people feel about it at the time? And no, I don't have any examples. it's just a general question because it comes up when people upload AI generated slop to Commons for Wikipedia articles. Adamant1 (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Adamant1 I'm pretty sure this would fall under original research as AI does not always provide accurate depictions of whatever it's rendering. WP:OI also says It is not acceptable for an editor to use photo manipulation to distort the facts or position illustrated by an image. Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 16:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

AI prompts given summaries of articles sounds horrible and gives me thoughts of the entire wiki getting overrun by computer-generated imagery with the potential to significantly miss its mark, and I rightfully hope the specific type of AI content you're referring to gets deleted from Commons as out-of-scope. Now, AI-generated imagery does have some relevance - such as at Department of Government Efficiency where the people we put in charge of running it created AI art to represent it. That's a different case from what I think you're referring to. Most articles would be significantly better off with no AI content, except where the specific AI content is a subject of discussion, as in the previously described case. See also WP:LLM, the policy on chatbots being used for adding text content to articles. Departure– (talk) 16:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@Departure–: I should have been clearer but I'm specifically talking about articles that don't have anything to do with AI or AI artwork to begin with. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Then we are on the same page. AI content getting added to pages where it isn't at all relevant is the illustration equivalent of original research and I hope all such images get removed from Commons. Departure– (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Help with New Page Patrol Review and Paid Editing Tag Removal for "It's Coming"

Hello,

I'm seeking assistance with the New Page Patrol review process and the removal of a paid editing tag for the article "It's Coming (film)". I initially requested a review on December 3rd, after moving the article from Draft space to mainspace. On December 12th, I followed up on my review request and also asked for the removal of the paid editing tag that had been added to the article. I provided a detailed explanation of my contributions and assured editors that I am not receiving any compensation for my work.

Despite these efforts, I have not received any substantive response to my requests. I also sought input on the Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous), but the situation remains unresolved.

The article is thoroughly sourced and complies with Wikipedia's guidelines for verifiability and neutrality. I've also added a Reception section with a Rotten Tomatoes score and critical consensus to further demonstrate the film's notability.

Could someone please advise me on how to proceed with getting this article reviewed and the paid editing tag removed? Is there anything else I can do to move the process along?

Thank you for your help! Stan1900 (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Stan1900, it is unlikely that any uninvolved editor will remove that tag or mark that page as patrolled until you are far more forthcoming about your relationship with the film and filmmaker. If you haven't read Wikipedia:Single-purpose account, I suggest that you do so. Do not repeat your earlier cookie cutter responses. A full and frank explanation is needed now, instead of evasiveness. Cullen328 (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I understand your concerns and need to directly address your characterization of my responses as "cookie cutter" or "evasive":

1. I created this account 8 years ago to edit Katherine Langford's page, which is completely unrelated to Shannon Alexander. To be absolutely clear: I have no personal, professional, or any other relationship with Shannon Alexander or anyone involved with these films. My interest in documenting Perth-based artists and their films stems solely from identifying gaps in coverage of independent films transitioning to wider releases.

2. All my sources are from established media outlets which meet reliability standards without question.

3. I have never received payment for editing. I have no financial or professional connection to these films or filmmakers. The paid editing tag is unjustified and should be removed.

4. The articles comply with guidelines and use reliable sources. I have been consistently transparent about my editing, and rather than being evasive, I am trying to provide clear, direct answers. If you have specific concerns about the content, I'm happy to address them. I hope this clarifies my position and resolves any misunderstandings. Stan1900 (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Stan1900, all that simply repeats your earlier statements and offers no new information. You are now behaving effectively like a one person public relations agency for Shannon Alexander on Wikipedia, and the skepticism of uninvolved editors is justified in my view, given your pattern of editing. While it is true that you made four edits to Katherine Langford in 2017 and 2018, you then stopped editing for 5-1/2 years and then returned 2-1/2 weeks ago to write three articles in one day about low budget films made by Shannon Alexander. One of those remains a draft. And since then, your editing behavior has been entirely focused on Shannon Alexander. That is highly unusual behavior consistent with a paid editing assignment. There is no solid proof but the way that various editors have responded to you is indicative of something not yet fully explained. Cullen328 (talk) 20:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Let me address each of your points specifically:

1. **Editing history**: Yes, I had a gap in editing - many Wikipedia editors do. My return coincides with these films receiving wider international distribution and recognition, making them newly notable for Wikipedia coverage. The fact that I wrote three articles in one day simply reflects when I had time to contribute - my work habits are not indicative of anything beyond that.

2. **Focus of documentation**: I want to correct several mischaracterizations:

- I am not a "one person PR agency" - I'm documenting notable films based entirely on independent, reliable sources

- I haven't even created a biographical page for Shannon Alexander - my focus is on documenting specific films that meet notability guidelines

- Your dismissal of these as merely "low budget films" overlooks their international recognition and distribution

- These are works that have transitioned from Perth's independent scene to receiving international attention and acclaim

- All information is based on coverage from established media outlets

3. **Pattern of editing**: When I edit, I edit according to my available time and interest. The timing and volume of my contributions is my personal choice and has no bearing on their validity. What matters is the content's compliance with Wikipedia guidelines, not when or how quickly I chose to write it.

4. **Evidence and assumptions**: You acknowledge there's "no solid proof" of paid editing, yet continue to push this narrative. Making repeated accusations without evidence contradicts Wikipedia's assumption of good faith.

I remain open to addressing specific concerns about the articles' content. If there are elements that need improvement, I'm happy to work with you and other editors to resolve them. However, continuing to make unsupported accusations about my motivations is not constructive. Stan1900 (talk) 02:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328, I provided a detailed response addressing the concerns about my editing history and relationship to the subjects. I've demonstrated the films' notability through reliable sources and international recognition. Could someone please review and advise if any additional information is needed to resolve this? Stan1900 (talk) 04:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Stan1900, you have not yet been able to convince uninvolved editors that the tag should be removed. And so it will stay. Cullen328 (talk) 05:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328, I'm unclear what constitutes "convincing" in this context. I have: - Provided reliable, independent sources - Demonstrated the films' notability - Explained my editing history - Clearly stated I have no financial connections - Followed all Wikipedia guidelines These are verifiable facts, not matters of personal conviction. If there are specific Wikipedia policies or guidelines that haven't been met, please identify them. Otherwise, continuing to maintain these tags without specific concerns seems contrary to Wikipedia's assumption of good faith. Stan1900 (talk) 06:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Stan1900, repeating yourself over and over without providing any new information is not an effective persuasion technique. Why not just drop the matter and move on? Cullen328 (talk) 06:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328, I've bent over backwards to address your concerns and provide the info you asked for:

- I've shown my sources are reliable and independent, from respected outlets like Hollywood Reporter and LA Times.

- I've explained multiple times that I'm editing these topics because I'm genuinely interested in improving coverage, not because I'm getting paid. I've said point-blank that I have no financial connection.

- I've detailed how I'm following all of Wikipedia's policies on sources, neutrality, and notability.

Honestly, your refusal to remove the paid editing tag feels baseless and unfair at this point. I've answered all your questions and met the requirements laid out in the guidelines. If there's anything else you need to know, just ask. But I'm not going to keep repeating myself.

Slapping a paid editing tag on my work without clear reasons goes against Wikipedia's principles. You're supposed to assume good faith and focus on content, not target individual editors. I've tried my best to discuss this openly and helpfully, but you don't seem to be listening.

If you won't reconsider based on everything I've said, I'll have to get a third opinion or start a formal dispute. I'm not just going to drop this when my editing integrity is being attacked without good cause.

I want to keep contributing and improving Wikipedia. I'm open to any actual constructive feedback you've got. But this feels like an abuse of the paid editing rules to shut down a good faith editor. That's not what Wikipedia is about.

Let's resolve this in a way that fits with Wikipedia's mission and policies. I'm doing my part - now it's on you to be fair and reasonable.

Stan1900 (talk) 23:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Stan1900, there are many thousands of active editors and hundreds of administrators. I am just one among them. Any other editor could have commented in the past three days. The Teahouse has over 9,600 page watchers, after all. I edit what I want and voluntarily choose to pick which actions I take and which I don't take. I am not obligated to do something just because you want me to. So, go right ahead. Get a third opinion or pursue whatever Dispute resolution process that you choose. Cullen328 (talk) 06:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

December 16

Linking other languages in Wikipedia - Wikidata problem

Please see Talk:Plover - I have added links to other language articles before, but in this case it didn't work, and I'm not familiar enough with Wikidata to work out how to do it. Can anyone help? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I have responded at Talk:Plover. It is possible to add interlanguage links manually, but I don't think that is the best solution here. TSventon (talk) 12:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Easier way to use visual editor to cite report with different pages and quotes?

Hello,

I use the Visual Editor for cites including the very useful “Re-use” option.

Every year the government publishes a report about Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey so I would like to cite many (maybe 20 or so) different pages of this in the article. At the moment I use the “rp” template for pages but if I remember right someone was working on improving the VE to do it more easily. But I cannot remember the name of the improvement. Can you?

Also I would like to “Re-use” the same report but with different quotes. Because so far I have generally put just page numbers but sometimes the info is not obvious on the page - for example GHG quantity for coal is sometimes buried in a table under “solid fuel”. Is there an easy way to “re-use” a report with different quotes? Or maybe I should put the row and column number of the table or put the number in Wikidata? Chidgk1 (talk) 08:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I am searching for that too, i remember that something like sub-reference appear at top banner once in Wikipedia a few months ago. it works like that you can use same source with different pages at different references. searching that i could only found this Mediawiki:VisualEditor/Basic example worksheet§References. see if that helps.––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 08:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Chidgk1 and KEmel49: the subreferencing feature announced in a CentralNotice banner in August is still under development.

Once deployed, it may or may not be possible to reuse a reference with the only difference being a |quote= parameter.

Quotes in references are generally overused. Shortened footnotes can be used for references to the same page of the same source with different quotes, but the quote must be placed after the template proper, within the <ref>...</ref> tags. (Given there are two multiply cited reports issued by the Ministry of Environment, Urbanisation and Climate Change dating November 2024, you'd also have to use title–date citation style rather than author–date as default).

In lieu of or in addition to specific quotes, navigation information can be provided following a citation (also within the ref tags), like "see Table n, under 'solid fuel'" or even "select Option from Dropdown" etc.

I'm not sure how any of these manifest within the Visual Editor, but given that the 2023 UNFCCC report is cited twenty-five times, it's a good case for shortened footnotes replacing {{rp}}. Folly Mox (talk) 11:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Necessary to add footnote for languages if in infobox?

This is for Chinese Garden MRT station and other MRT stations in Singapore. Is it necessary to add a footnote for the name of the station in different languages if it is already in the infobox? Keep in mind that Singapore is a multilingual society. Imbluey2. Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 10:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Imbluey2 If the names in languages other than English are already included in the infobox or the lead paragraph, then it's not necessary to add them to the footnotes. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 12:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! Btw, by footnote I mean putting one in the lead paragraph since it makes the article less cluttery but either way, it's fineImbluey2. Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 12:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Biography: names of living children

I'm sure I've read somewhere that, in biographies, WP should not publish the names of living children who are not notable, in order to protect their privacy. Can someone point me at a policy or whatever? Masato.harada (talk) 10:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-problematic IP ranges

There's a few semi-problematic IP ranges I've noticed - some appear to be dominated primarily by the same user as well. I've found one in particular with edits not quite SPI or AIV level but frequently unconstructive - an IP-hopping not-quite-vandal on a different IPv6 every day where any warnings issued would be worthless. In lieu of a rangeblock (as disruption doesn't appear too frequent nor blatant), would it be allowed to keep a contributions link to their range on my userpage (or a subpage thereof)? This would make it easier to keep tabs on any less obvious disruption they cause and remove it sooner. Departure– (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Departure– You can certainly keep such a link, as you can to any other editor's contributions. You may not know how to find contributions that appear missing for an editor using an IPv6 address: add /64 to the end of the URL. For example Special:Contributions/2600:8801:A802:C300:E121:48D7:2C8D:300A/64 and you should get all their contributions. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I was just wondering because I believe a few other pages accusing actual logged-in users have been deleted as attack pages. As far as I know this user doesn't have any accounts and only edits anonymously. Departure– (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Difference between "connected to" and "passionate"

Hey! When preparing to create an article there is a section in the article wizard that asks if you are close or related to the topic you are wanting to write about. In my case, it's something I'm not really connected to, but have done research on in the past and enjoy. (Everything I would write would have the references and citations needed, of course) I understand that policy is there to avoid a bias opinion and tone within the article, and my information is mainly factual. But because it's something I love and am invested in, would I be "ineligible" to write the article? Is there a set precedent for this? Thanks! Therguy10 (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

You definitely are eligible to create Wikipedia articles/drafts about that. However, if I were you, I'd select the "I'm not connected to the subject" button. You really can't create an article if you haven't done any research on it. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 16:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello! You have nothing to worry about here. "Connected to" refers to things like writing about yourself, people you personally know, or a company you work for. Most of us write about things we've researched and are passionate about (and sometimes we even discover new passions while writing). As long as you write in an impartial tone, you're good to go. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ivebeenhacked @Thebiguglyalien That's what I was looking for! Thank you both very much! Therguy10 (talk) 15:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 23:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Strange accident when reverting vandalism

Hi, I was reverting some vandalism to the article Toyota (here) but something bizarre happened: the edit history shows I apparently deleted nearly the entire article! I quickly reverted that edit (here), but the edit history is even stranger, showing the article restored, but with a bunch of small edits to the article. Can someone take a look at the edit history and help me understand what happened? Harris7 (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I think I resolved it, by reverting to last edit before the vandalism. It was due to a web browser filter I was using, unexpectedly changing the content of the article. Sorry for the mess! Harris7 (talk) 18:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Looks like a technical error, with the entire article being placed in a template of some sort. More than likely this was on your end and entailed some variant of the mouse button being held down when going through the article, followed by a deletion or replacement action. I've rolled back the edits manually. For future reference, you can rollback edits manually even without the rollbacker right by going to a previous good revision, clicking "edit source", and publishing changes - this will revert the article to that revision. But if you just pressed "Undo" and then "Publish changes", then something must have gone horribly wrong somewhere along the line, perhaps on the network's end. Departure– (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Why am I being redirected to the arbitration committee when I feel like it is unncessessary.

Hello, yes it's me again for the 100th time. I posted a unprotection request on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Decrease for the Meitei language and I've been told to follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Appeals and amendments, but that's telling me to go to the arbitration committee when it feels like that would be going too far. And the arbitration committee deals with a whole contentious topic, I only want that single page unprotected or semi-protected (the current protection is extended confirmed.) Thank you and Wikipedia needs to be less complicated, please. ミラへぜ (talk) (ping me!) 21:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Probably should have stated that it does not fall under one of our contentious topics which are covered by the ArbCom, but it likely was ECPed because of persistent disruptive editing in the past. If it’s downgraded to Semi, then those with less than 30 days and 500 edits with (inadvertently or otherwise) little understanding of our guidelines may improperly edit it and run afoul of them constantly. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 22:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

2601AC47, WP:ARBIPA does exist and covers the subject. It does not come with an extended-confirmed restriction like WP:ARBPIA though. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, do check what I just gave you on your talk. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 22:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

ミラへぜ, looking at your request and the responses, you have not been redirected to the Arbitration Committee. Please have a closer look at the list below An editor appealing a restriction may at Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Appeals and amendments. You have been informed about an appeal process that starts with asking the protecting administrator, Courcelles in this case. This is independent of contentious topic restrictions, though, as you should always ask the protecting administrator first. As the protection was made more than a year ago, special rules apply in case another administrator disagrees, but these details are irrelevant until you have asked Courcelles. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Er, while we're here, isn't this username against policy? It's like naming yourself ウィキペディア. -- asilvering (talk) 02:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Are you referring to the alphabet or a translation? Users with usernames in non-Latin script writing systems are welcome to edit Wikipedia. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Neither. Miraheze, like Wikipedia/the WMF, is a non-profit that runs wikis. -- asilvering (talk) 05:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Despite non-Latin being fine, your example would be a violation of WP:ORGNAME, since it's just 'Wikipedia' in kana. Is there a Japanese organization named 'Miraheze'? Safrolic (talk) 03:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

ミラへぜ's userpage mentions miraheze.org, described at Draft:Miraheze. TSventon (talk) 03:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, that's me shown. Good catch by asilvering! Safrolic (talk) 04:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it's another wiki hosting service. I'm somewhat surprised to find that we don't have an article on it already. -- asilvering (talk) 05:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

December 17

Getting my profile back

Hi, I use to have my WIKIPEDIA page, for some reason it got taken down by you. What can I do to get it back up? It was created by a third party. ShonaliSabherwal (talk) 07:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@ShonaliSabherwal: - it is not "your profile". There was an article about you at Shonali Sabherwal but it was deleted. One of the reasons given was undisclosed paid editing, another was that you are not notable enough to have an article. Mjroots (talk) 07:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@ShonaliSabherwal - it looks like it was deleted, but let me also caution you that you might not want an article about yourself restored, see WP:PROUD. TiggerJay (talk) 16:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Publishing translated biography on the main Wikipedia

I have translated and updated the biography of Magdalena Pinkwart, Polish journalist, writer and TV personality from Poland living and working in the UK as a TV correspondent and journalist. I am an experienced Wikipedist on Polish Wikipedia, on English Wikipedia I have less contributions, so I am not able to publish the article on the main Wikipedia. I would like to ask an experienced editor to have a look on the article and move it to the main Wikipedia Page: User:Stowarzyszeniedt/Magdalena Pinkwart

the referral page of the person (Polish): https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalena_Pinkwart

Thank You Stowarzyszeniedt (talk) 10:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I have added a header to your draft to allow you to submit it for review. (I also turned the name of the page into a wikilink in your question above). ColinFine (talk) 11:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Thank You for the link and the header in the draft. You are very helpful. Stowarzyszeniedt (talk) 11:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Citations

Does an uploaded photo on wikimedia commons count as a refrence?

For example,

I recently went on a tour to the hong kong marine police headquarters and there was a plague listing the deaths in the line of duty, which I put onto the wikipedia article along with a photo of the plague with the list. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Technically you are citing the plaque, not the photo itself. You can cite it with Template:Cite sign and put the Wikimedia Commons links to the photo on the "URL" field. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 13:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your information Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Strange user notifications

Can anyone shed light on why I got 50 near-simultaneous notifications at around 09:00 UTC today about a non-existent user (User:Dogbe_peter) thanking me for each of my most recent 50 edits? Bazza 7 (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The user exists, they just don't have a User page. It's possible it is a spam bot account. It happens. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Looks like you were one of 4 people who were thanked by a user with zero edits [1]. Not sure if you should feel appreciated or harassed. Cheers! TiggerJay (talk) 16:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

IP address blocked

I have used Wikipedia for years and edited articles without any problems. I have had data fibre installed to my house with a different service provider. I now get the message "This IP address is blocked from editing Wikipedia" I can edit using my mobile phone when using a cellular data connection. I need to get ublocked. I would really appreciate a simple guide how to do this. Thanks DavidJaneAlexandra (talk) 17:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

You can request an IP block exemption at WP:IPBE. Departure– (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Can XC users bypass PC?

As it says in the heading: can extended confirmed users bypass pending changes review? I'd imagine it would be a waste of time for reviewers to have to approve XC users' edits, but you never know. Thanks, /home/gracen/ (they/them) 20:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @GracenC, yes, they automatically are. And not only extended confirmed but also auto confirmed editor's edits to articles under pending changes are automatically accepted. No special action is needed. The main caveat, that I'm aware of, is if there are any pending changes/edits from a non-auto confirmed user, all later edits are marked as pending until a reviewer reviews the edits. Wikipedia:Pending changes, and Wikipedia:Pending changes § Frequently asked questions in particular, I think describes it fairly well. Skynxnex (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! I misread part of the FAQ you linked and interpreted it to mean that "established users" didn't get their edits automatically accepted (it was actually just stating the caveat you explained), so I was confused and wanted human confirmation. /home/gracen/ (they/them) 22:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

December 18

Dispute over Paid Editing Tag on "It's Coming" and Review of "The Misguided" Draft

Hello, I request assistance with two issues:

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

1. Request for Page Patrol and Removal of Paid Editing Tag on "It's Coming" Article Although I have not been directly tagged for paid editing, User:Cullen328 has been the primary editor maintaining the paid editing tag on the article It's Coming (film). I have provided reliable sources, stated I have no financial connection to the subject, and followed Wikipedia's guidelines. Despite multiple attempts to address their concerns and answering similar questions from other editors, the tag remains in place without clear justification. Can someone help review this situation and provide guidance?

Why it should be published:

1. • The article is well-sourced, with reliable, independent sources such as Rotten Tomatoes and critical reviews.
   • There are no violations of Wikipedia's neutrality or notability guidelines.
   • The continued application of the paid editing tag without clear evidence is detrimental to the article's progress.
   • I also request page patrol for the article, as it has been thoroughly vetted and should be considered for removal of the tag and eventual publication.
2. Review of "The Misguided" Draft I submitted a draft for the article Draft:The Misguided on December 3rd, 2024, and have followed up on the draft's talk page. However, I have not received any review or response. Can someone assist with reviewing this draft and moving it to mainspace if it meets the requirements?

Why it should be published:

1. • The draft is sourced with reliable, independent sources, including Hollywood Reporter and LA Times.
   • The article meets notability requirements, covering key aspects of the film's reception and production.
   • The draft has been patiently waiting for review and has already gone through multiple improvements based on feedback.

Thank you for your help! Stan1900 (talk) 07:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

The statement that User:Cullen328 has been the primary editor maintaining the paid editing tag on the article is a falsehood. I have never edited either It's Coming (film) or its talk page. I have never discouraged any uninvolved editor from removing the tag. I have simply tried to explain to Stan1900 why several editors have expressed concern about their pattern of editing. As for Draft:The Misguided, submitted for an additional review on December 3, 15 days ago, there is a notice at the top of the draft that says This may take 8 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 1,820 pending submissions waiting for review. Stan1900 has no basis for complaining for at least another six weeks. Stan1900 is a single purpose editor totally focused on films made by Shannon Alexander, plus getting their own way. Cullen328 (talk) 08:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

The statement eventual publication regarding It's Coming (film) makes no sense, since that article is already in the mainspace of the encyclopedia. It's published. Wikipedia does not exist to facilitate search engine optimization. Cullen328 (talk) 08:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Stan1900, there are thousands of articles in the queue for both page patrol and AfC reviews. You just need to be patient until a volunteer gets to them. Schazjmd (talk) 13:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Schazjmd, thank you for your input. While I understand the backlog for reviews, I must address the following points:

1. **The paid editing tags on It's Coming (film) and "The Misguided":**

- The tags are unwarranted and unsupported by evidence.

- I have provided reliable sources for both articles and have explicitly stated that I have no financial connection to the subjects.

- These tags negatively impact the articles' indexing and discoverability, reducing accessibility for readers. This is not about SEO but ensuring that notable topics are properly represented and accessible.

- Their continued application without clear evidence contradicts Wikipedia's principle of assuming good faith and undermines the integrity of the review process.

2. **"The Misguided" draft:**

- While I acknowledge the standard review timeline, the baseless paid editing accusations are influencing the progress and fair evaluation of this draft.

- The draft meets notability requirements, supported by reliable, independent sources from established media outlets.

3. **Clarification of my contributions:**

- I have been an active editor for 8 years, with contributions spanning a variety of topics.

- My recent focus on Shannon Alexander's films stems from identifying a content gap that I sought to address using reliable sources.

- Allegations questioning my integrity distract from the core issue: the quality and adherence of the articles to Wikipedia's guidelines.

I request an immediate review by uninvolved editors to:

- Remove the paid editing tags on "It's Coming" and "The Misguided" based on content and sourcing.

- Conduct a new page patrol review for both articles to ensure fair evaluation and compliance with Wikipedia policies.

Constructive feedback grounded in Wikipedia's guidelines is always welcome, but baseless claims should not overshadow the fair assessment of content.

Stan1900 (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328 linked you to WP:Dispute resolution in your first conversation on this page; I suggest you review the options there to address the paid editing tags. Schazjmd (talk) 15:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Schazjmd, thank you for directing me to the dispute resolution process. Which specific dispute resolution avenue would you recommend as most appropriate in this case? I want to ensure this is handled through the correct channels. Stan1900 (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

We can't guarantee you a speedy review. 331dot (talk) 16:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Stan1900, start at the beginning. You have yet to discuss the paid editing tag with the editor who applied it; I'd start there. Schazjmd (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Stan1900, I also strongly urge you to strike out the false statement User:Cullen328 has been the primary editor maintaining the paid editing tag on the article It's Coming (film). Schazjmd (talk) 16:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Stan1900: Whilst complaining of others not assuming your good faith, you have not yet addressed the response to your accusation that @Cullen328 added the paid editing hatnote which you have complained about. (The text of that hatnote states "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payment"; that's "may have", not "has".) Bazza 7 (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Bazza 7, you bring up assuming good faith, yet the continued presence of an unwarranted tag without evidence does exactly the opposite. The articles' content and sources demonstrate compliance with Wikipedia policies. Instead of debating semantics, we should focus on whether the tag is justified based on actual evidence and policy. Stan1900 (talk) 16:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Stan1900: I was not debating semantics. I was observing a still-present defamation about another editor. Bazza 7 (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Bazza 7, if you're concerned about defamation, perhaps address the unsupported accusations that I'm a "one person PR agency" or doing "paid editing" for "SEO." These claims continue without evidence, affecting article accessibility and my ability to contribute. The focus should be on article content and compliance with Wikipedia policies, not unfounded accusations in either direction. Stan1900 (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I have changed the tag on It's Coming (film) to a conflict of interest since the user admits contacting them, I have also trimmed some of the unsourced contnet and marked it as reviewed. Theroadislong (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Theroadislong, thank you for reviewing the article and removing the paid editing tag. However, requesting source materials when writing an article is standard practice and doesn't constitute a conflict of interest when there's no financial or professional relationship involved. The article's content is based on independent, reliable sources and maintains a neutral point of view. Stan1900 (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

It is very clearly NOT standard practice I have written more than a hundred articles and never felt the need to contact the subject. Theroadislong (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

ChatGPT doesn't have a very good idea of what our standard practices are. -- asilvering (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Theroadislong, asilvering, Reaching out to subjects for source materials is standard journalistic practice, and I’m fully within my rights to do so. It’s about ensuring accuracy, not creating conflicts of interest.

As for the AI comment, it’s a bit off-topic. I’m not just parroting information I find online—I’m engaging with these topics thoughtfully. Let’s keep the focus on the articles and the sources used to ensure the content is reliable and neutral. Stan1900 (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

it may be standard journalistic practice but it is absolutely NOT Wikipedia practice ever. Theroadislong (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, seriously, cut it out with the AI. How thoughtfully are you engaging with these topics if you're outsourcing your thoughts to a machine? -- asilvering (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I too have written over 100 Wikipedia articles and have never contacted the subject of an article I've written. Stan1900 says I have been an active editor for 8 years, with contributions spanning a variety of topics. The fact of the matter is that the Stan1900 made nine edits to Katherine Langford and its talk page in 2017 and 2018. Langford is an actress in It's Coming (film), written a few weeks ago by Stan1900. From 2018 to November 2024, a period of 6-1/2 years, the account made no edits. Then, on November 30, 2024, less than three weeks ago, the editor wrote three new articles, one still a draft, about films made by Shannon Alexander, one starring Langford. In that three weeks, the editor has been incredibly repetitive and persistent in pushing these three articles and dismissing the concerns expressed by several editors, not just me. They are not above making a false accusation against me. They consistently insist on special preferential treatment that is not extended to thousands of other editors who have written drafts. This is highly unusual behaviour. Cullen328 (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Non-free historic image

I'm working on Hu Jintao removal incident, the Chinese version of which has an locally uploaded image tagged with {{non-free historic image}}. Is the image allowed under enwiki's criteria? Thanks. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 09:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

It's highly relevant to the article and informative, and it is small. I can't read the (Chinese-language) fair-use argument and thus can't comment on the likely adequacy in en:Wikipedia of a translation, but I imagine that a persuasive argument could be made here too. -- Hoary (talk) 12:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

The Chinese rationale just says something like "it is hard for the reader to understand the incident from words alone, which is why this image is needed." I'll go ahead and upload the image here. Thanks. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Images in inventory table

Whenever i scroll down, images in inventory table drastically go down in size (although very few of them stay the same, but only at start then if i scroll more they too get smaller), is there a way to set images to stay the same size as it is set? Persian Meowth (talk) 09:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by "inventory table"? What article or other page are you looking at? ColinFine (talk) 10:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, images in a template. Persian Meowth (talk) 11:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Which template? And do you mean looking at the template page, or at an article which uses the template? Also, what kind of device are you using? ColinFine (talk) 12:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

For instance, template found on a page “List of equipment of the Royal Netherlands Army”. And of course, images do not get drastically smaller just on that article but on every that uses template with images. I am using iphone, but I had same thing happening on android as well. Persian Meowth (talk) 14:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

The page doesn't declare a minimum width for the column containing images. On mobile, they will get scaled to the predefined minimum size, which indeed is rather small. Setting a CSS statement of min-width: 100px or something on each column header of columns with images should help here. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, hope it helps Persian Meowth (talk) 15:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Mind if I ask how do you set a CSS Statement on min-width? Persian Meowth (talk) 15:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

If I actively volunteer for transport hubs, should I declare a COI on the respective articles? May I still edit them?

I actively volunteer for Sanba station and I volunteered for Hangzhou South railway station. The former gave me a ¥50 credit for my transit card and the latter gave me ¥30 a day for a week (I forgot the exact amount). Do I need to declare my WP:COI on their respective talk pages? Am I still allowed to edit them? (To be honest, there's not much to write anyway. It's more to be transparent that I volunteered there before.) Félix An (talk) 09:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

"Location map" module expanding UX

I would be shocked if this hasn't been discussed before, but it's not currently on the talk page for Template: Location map, and I am not sure how to search the history of it. (I did click back several revisions.) ** EDIT: I figured out how to search archives! But I still cannot actually find any mention of this, although it's a little tricky to come up with useful search terms.

But when an article uses an Location map module in its content, a background image appears with a pin overlaid upon it. Clicking the image takes you to the full-page view of that image, without the pin.

There are numerous help requests I could find posted online (on sites like Reddit, Metafilter, and so on) going back several years, so clearly this is confounding several people.

I understand why it's happening technically, but it seems like it would be something easy-enough to have resolved in the last 8 years or so. The Location Map clearly has the pin location data provided to it. It seems as though clicking on the image could take a user to a view of the image (perhaps even an intermediary page) with query parameters representing the pin data to be rendered on top of it. (And from there, of course, the raw image itself could be subsequently linked to as well.)

My guess is there is some sort of underlying policy reason why something like this hasn't been implemented -- perhaps all links on an article must take you directly to the root source of the content (in this case the image), and as such an interstitial page would break some rule of Wikipedia -- but that feels far-fetched.

Does anyone know the reason, and if there's anything a user like me could do to improve things? Dabizi~enwiki (talk) 18:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)