Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2023 January 26

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

January 26

Popups

hi, was not sure who to contact with this. But recently each time I am reading a Wiki page I get a popup that diverts me to another website which tells me I have won an Optus phone, and other stuff. Can you please make it stop?

I have taken a gyazo screen shot of it below: https://gyazo.com/1480d6dbd7b2f709dbd19e8c92d9d513 110.174.174.122 (talk) 02:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

That's not from Wikipedia. Your computer has probably been infected with a virus or malware. RudolfRed (talk) 02:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Your computer might have malware. Try performing a factory reset, etc etc. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 02:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia never runs ads, let alone popup ads, so what you are experiencing is definitely adware. I'd suggest doing as Sungodtemple suggested, but also installing an antivirus software that can detect and neutralize such PUPs in the future (as well as remove the adware you currently have). Kirbanzo ^{(talk - contribs)} 02:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Please link an example wiki page. wikipedia.org does not have ads but there are thousands of unaffiliated wikis, and many sites copy Wikipedia articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 06:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

A different way of asking PrimeHunter's question: What's the URL of the/an offending wiki page? Or anyway, what's the domain name (the address as far as the first slash, so for this page it is (or anyway it should be) either "https://en.wikipedia.org" or "https://en.m.wikipedia.org")? -- Hoary (talk) 08:51, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Hidden sidebar

In the new interface, I saw the right-hand sidebar only once. Then I made the mistake of clicking "hide". How can I see it again? Thank you for your help. Vzeebjtf (talk) 06:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Vzeebjtf: You'll find that the Tools will have migrated to the top of the page alongside other features like Edit source or History. Click on it then click "Move to sidebar" to return it to the right. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Vzeebjtf (talk) 08:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Images

Hello, I need assistance regarding uploading non free images, for Smooth Radio (2014) and Smooth Chill (UK radio station). Basically, they recently had new logos launched and I want to update them in the article. I have saved two images of the logos on Google but I need to know if there is anything I need to do before I upload not to violate any copyright rules. Thanks, Blanchey (talk) 09:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Blanchey Have you read the guidance at WP:LOGO? That has the general process. Then I suggest you click through to the file page for one of the existing logos and you'll see how the justification for using these WP:NONFREE images is written up. You don't need to worry about the resolution of your new upload: there's a bot that will automatically lower the resolution of the upload to acceptable values and delete your original. Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Michael D. Turnball Thank you for your quick response, I have done it for the first article I linked. Someone might want to check I have done it all ok. I don’t want to violate any copyright rules. Thanks, Blanchey (talk) 09:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Blanchey I'm not sure that you should have uploaded your new image by replacing the old one, rather than at a completely new file page (title). The issue is that the old logo seems to have been used on several articles including Smooth Scotland, which is odd: nonfree images are usually one-per-article. Incidentally, when pinging someone using the reply tool, the safest way to do so is to use the icon that looks like a head-and-shoulders with a plus sign. That offers the editor names that are already in the thread and avoids mis-spelling, as you did with me: note the red-link in your reply. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull yes you’re right, sorry I didn’t think of that. I tried to revert myself but it won’t let me. What do you think I should do now? I don’t want to cause any more harm. Blanchey (talk) 10:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Hopefully someone more expert than me about nonfree images will come along soon. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Blanchey and Michael D. Turnbull: Generally, you should avoid overwriting an existing file whenever possible, especially for freely licensed and public domain files, because overwriting means that all uses of a file will be changed to the new version of the file. In the case of non-free files, it's OK to update a file if only minor changes (e.g. straightening, minor cropping or other types of incidental clean up) are made, but any major changes or any updates that essentially create a new file should be avoided as much as possible. In addtion, unlike freely licensed and public domain files, old revisions of non-free files are eligible for speedy deletion per speedy deletion criterion F5; so, if you overwrite an existing non-free file like a logo with a new completely different version of the logo, the old revision will eventually be deleted and nobody other than administrators will be able to still see it. In some cases, this matters not because the the updating is non-contentious and the change is fairly minor. In other cases, others might disagree with the update which could possibly lead to edit warring. In some cases, there might still even be a valid non-free use for the "old" file, but this would not be possible if it has been overwritten.

As for File:Smooth Radio logo.png, the change in the station's logo seems rather minor (at least it does to me); so, updating the logo is probably OK. However, as pointed out above, the same file is being used in multiple articles which means the change also needs to be assessed in respect to these uses too. It's quite possible (at probably likely) that those other uses are invalid in terms of Wikipedia's non-free content policy, but they still need to be assessed. Perhaps the thing to do here would be to start a discussion about the change at WP:FFD and (1) whether all of the uses of the file satisfy Wikipedia's non-free content use policy and (2) whether a new version of the logo should be uploaded as a separate file or an update to the existing file. It also seems likely that this logo is too simple to eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law per c:COM:TOO United States even if the same can't be said for the UK per c:COM:TOO United Kingdom. What this means is that even if the logo is too complex to be hosted by Commons, it's probably OK to be relicensed as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} for local use on English Wikipedia instead of being licensed as non-free content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

How to query a decision on a draft page

Hi,

I'm struggling to get an answer to my query about a draft page I submitted. I posted this twice on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk but haven't had any responses. In summary:

I have edited a page: Draft:AliceVision and I believe it now meets the criteria to be accepted onto wikipedia and the recent review lacks rationale.

The latest review of this page led to a claim that "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia", with no reasoning for this conclusion given. This contrasts with months of editing and review that gave constructive feedback, with previous reviewers being positive about the page, i.e. here

> That is looking good. I will be leaving it to someone else to approve it as I have been involved in editing it but it should be looked at shortly. Gusfriend

Feedback has been acted upon and the reasoning behind choices of literature to support the page made clear.

I have been trying to communicate with @Tagishsimon, who came to rejection decision, for two weeks now, but have had no response to my posts on their talk page, or my direct email, even though they appear to be actively editing wikipedia they haven't gotten back to me. Could you please advise how I should proceed? Pluke (talk) 10:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I will look at your comment; sometimes patience is required. If the original reviewer isn't responding to you, they likely have nothing to say beyond what they have. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @331dot The issue is I can't see any rationale provided for their decision other than the topic not being "not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia". I think the notability claim has been laid out quite clearly over the last two year's of discussion. Do let me know if you have any other questions. Pluke (talk) 11:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Within those two years during which you believe that "the notability claim has been laid out quite clearly", five different reviewers have decided that the notability criteria have not been met (and two other reviewers prior to that two year period). The most recent decision was rejected rather than just declined, so the reviewer is telling you that it is not sensible for you to waste any more time trying to improve the submission. You ought to find a different subject which might be notable. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Pluke: You should proceed by abandoning your effort to add the article. Wikipedia operates by consensus. There is a consensus here: seven or more editors have indicated that this subject is not notable by our standards. The only way to change this consensus will be if something happens in the real world (not Wikipedia) that increases the subject's notability. See WP:AMOUNT. None of the editors who have reviewed your draft have any further obligation to engage with you: you are wasting their time and they know it. If this was a vote, you have been outvoted by seven to one. -Arch dude (talk) 15:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@331dot explained things very well, I'm not opposed to democracy and the process here, but I'd rather it didn't appear to be arbitrary. This isn't my draft, I'm merely picking up someone else's many months of work where I thought the system was far from clear and hadn't responded to their points in its decision making. Stating "you have been outvoted" is somewhat missing my point here. Pluke (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

What's clear is that, after two years of trying, no-one has provided evidence that the subject is notable. To understand how that word it used here, click on it: it's a link. If you still disagree, state here which three of the article's references do most to establish that the subject is notable.Maproom (talk) 15:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Maproom I suppose I don't have a good feel for what would comprise a reference that established the notability of a software product. I'm clear with books and newspaper articles, but that's mainly for other things, not software. Pluke (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Pluke, when an editor doggedly works to have an article accepted, insisting on notability in the face of insufficient evidence, other editors may start to assume that there may be a conflict of interests. Quisqualis (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

This is a fair point, but not entirely applicable to this case and I hope that this reasoning wasnt behind the rejection. I'm not the original editor, my contribution only started a few weeks ago, you can check out the edit log. I was trying to write this article but found one already in draft mode. Reading through the previous reasoning for putting it in draft i adjusted the article to meet the criticisms and still think I did what was being asked of it, though this doesn't necessarily equate to it being notable. I'm here in good faith, willing to learn, @331dot has done a wonderful job of explaining things. I know there are systems here and I was merely asking for a little explanation.Pluke (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Pluke:Let's make this more explicit. Because of your edit history and your discussions, editors assume you have a WP:COI, and that there is a possibility that you are WP:PAID. This assumption may not be valid, but it is there. Therefore, you should explain your relationship with the subject on your user page. Whatever the relationship is, it won't be any worse than the one most editors assume you have. If you are being remunerated in any way, directly or indirectly, then you MUST declare the relationship according to the Wikipedia terms of use. Otherwise you are not allowed to use the site. Your "not entirely correct" phrase implies that there is some sort of relationship. -Arch dude (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Arch dude This is really going off-track! Apologies if I've been muddying the water with some loose language. I'm happy to declare that I have no conflict of interest at all in this. It's just a popular tool I've used and wondered why it didn't have a presence on wikipedia when lots of lesser known equivalent software does. My "not entirely applicable" is a reference to one of the previous editors of the page who declared that they worked on the software. I don't know them or or have any dealings with their open source organisation other than downloading and using their software. But having read it, I do think that their response to the notability questions posed previously deserved a hearing. That's why I came here. I'm not sure what my edit history really has to do with this, surely it's very normal for someone editing am article to query a decision about that article? Pluke (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Do not like the new format

Do not like the new format 2600:1700:36E1:3F80:806E:293B:A750:A77E (talk) 12:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you asking about a sudden change to Wikipedia's appearance? It is because the default skin has changed from the Vector legacy (2010) skin to the new Vector (2022) skin. If you would like to change back to the old one, you can, as a registered user, click on the in the top-right corner and choose Preferences. Once there, go to Preferences → Appearance → Skins → Vector legacy (2010).
If you would like to leave feedback, you can do so at Wikipedia talk:Vector 2022. IP users can follow advice at this URL.Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Write an article for Felix from Stray Kids

Two weeks ago, I signed up for Wikipedia and began to do my research to write individual articles for each member of Stray Kids. It would be efficient to type one article at a time, so I decided to write about Felix from Stray Kids first. On my sandbox profile, I have been writing a draft article for Felix. In case you are unfamiliar, 22-year-old Felix Lee is a singer and rapper from Australia who is a member of the K-pop boy band Stray Kids.

A URL to Wikipedia for his page would be expected to look like this:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_(singer)

I hoped I found a reliable source for some of Felix's information. Wikipedia would not allow me to cite this source:

https://nationaltoday.com/birthday/lee-felix/

With some help, I can manage to write a page for Felix and move on to his bandmates from Stray Kids (Bang Chan, I.N, Han, Hyunjin, Lee Know, Seungmin, and Changbin). Flame, not lame (talk) 13:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

You had a syntax error in your attempt at the citation of that reference. I have corrected it in this edit. Another editor has provided a list of useful links in a welcome message on your user talk page. Among those you should read the Manual of Style. I won't comment on the notability of the subject, but a reviewer would do so if you eventually submit the draft for AFC review when you've sorted out the problems. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay, David. You're very intelligent yourself.

I wonder how long it is going to take until Wikipedia allows me to edit publicly. I have been using Wikipedia for 2 weeks, so 'tis understandable there ain't too many things I can do yet.

I appreciate your cooperation. Flame, not lame (talk) 14:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Flame, and welcome to Wikipedia. Wikipedia has always allowed you (and almost anybody else) to edit publicly - even before you created an account. But if you don't edit according to Wikipedia's policies, then your edits are likely to get undone.

If by "edit publicly" you mean "create a new article", then you're in a similar position to somebody who has just had his first violin lesson, and says "How long is it going to take before they'll let me give a public recital?" Answer: you can try it whenever you like, but if you don't learn to play first, you won't be successful.

In another day, you'll be autoconfirmed, which means that the software will allow you to create an article directly in mainspace. However, if you do so, you will almost certainly have a miserable time (think of that new violin player trying to stand up and play in a concert hall). If you're lucky, somebody will move it back to draft space (functionally equivalent to the sandbox you're currently working in). If a patroller thinks that it is not salvageable (most likely because they conclude that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability) then it will get deleted.

My advice (as to all new editors) is to put aside the idea of creating any new article for several months, and learn how Wikipedia works by making improvements to some of our six million existing articles (thousands and thousands and thousands of them desperately need it!)

In any case, make sure you read your first article before working on any new submission. ColinFine (talk) 15:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

You also need to read about reliable sources, which don't include wikis. David Biddulph (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

You should also be aware of WP:NBANDMEMBER - while Stray Kids is a notable band, the individual members are probably not notable enough outside of the band to warrant their own articles.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

How do i remove the TOC from the top of the article. It ALWAYS prints out no matter what edits I attempt

. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.90.53.12 (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

On which page? Remove it for yourself or for everybody? When you view it in a browser or when you print on paper? PrimeHunter (talk) 16:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

This is a bug in the new skin. Will be fixed next week —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Have you used the "Download as PDF" option in the sidebar on the right? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Discrepancy in signature timestamp

I signed an unsigned IP talk page comment from 2010 at Talk:Ed Smith (streetball player), however the timestamp in the signature of the reply was one hour earlier than that in the edit history (shows as 18:20 on the talk page, 19:20 in revision history, presumably both are UTC). This makes it look like the reply happened before the original comment. Was there, historically, an error in signature timestamps (possibly connected to daylight saving) that could have caused this, and should I correct the timestamp on the talk page? --Jameboy (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jameboy: The IP edit says 18:18 in the revision history [1] for me with the default UTC at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. Your edit [2] said 19:18. How did you make the timestamp in the edit and what is your time zone at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering? All time stamps should be UTC. If it's too difficult for you to make UTC times then omit the time. Some time zone settings will give the same as UTC now but not during summer time in the time zone. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: OK, I think I see what has happened. I'm based in the UK. My time preference was set to +1:00, which is incorrect as I should currently be on +0:00 (though +1:00 is correct during the summer). After changing to +0:00, this fixed the times in revision history. I may have signed a few unsigned talk page comments one hour out due to copying the time from revision history. I had previously assumed revision history was also UTC, but it appears to be stated in local time. This should really be made explicit on the revision history page, especially as the templates such as Template:Unsigned IP, which I was using, use UTC (admittedly if I'd read the template documentation more thoroughly, I might have spotted this earlier). This is probably obvious for someone in another time zone where UTC is always a few hours different to local time, but much less obvious when you are in a time zone that is on UTC+0:00 for half the year. Also, it seems then that Wikipedia does not automatically adjust user's local time for daylight savings, so if you want to set your local time correctly, you would have to manually change it in the preferences twice a year, is that correct? In any case, for consistency, I think it will be best for me to stick to +0:00 from now on. --Jameboy (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jameboy: You can both choose a named time zone like Europe/London and a permanent offset like +1:00. Europe/London automatically changes to British Summer Time at the right time. All interface times, meaning all times not saved in wikitext, are in your time preference. I think it would be messy to write that everywhere interface times are displayed. For example, time stamps on edits could also be copied from contributions, watchlists, diffs, old revisions like [3] and some other places. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

There are issues with the summaries in the preview function

When I hover my cursor over a link, sometimes the summary doesn't show up properly in the popup function like https://imgur.com/a/LXDakon. How can this issue be fixed? Matematica6 (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Matematica6, that is an external link. The various popup functions are for internal links only. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Matematica6: The former reply misunderstood your screenshot so please ignore it. The screenshot shows you have enabled "Navigation popups" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. It's an old feature which is mainly for editors. If you disable it then you can choose "Enable page previews" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. It didn't exist when your account was created in 2013 but it's default now and aimed at readers. Navigation popups doesn't read far enough into Economy of Norway because the infobox is so big and appears first in the source. Page previews works differently and displays content for that article. I prefer Navigation popups but I'm an editor. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Commercial reuse without attribution

A website called Artvee is reusing WP content with no evidence of attribution; whom should I contact? Quisqualis (talk) 18:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC) Edit: Click any image on the page; the artist info may match the lead of the WP article.--Quisqualis (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Their contact email is info (at) artvee.com Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 18:54, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it might be more useful to contact the Wikimedia Foundation as opposed to the people operating the mirror site without attribution. I'd suggest legal@wikimedia.org would be who to contact. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

The procedure is at WP:Mirrors and forks#Non-compliance process. But the only people who can take action in respect of a licence violation are those whose copyright has been violated: not Wikipedia, and not a random editor like you and me. I don't think the Foundation can take any action. ColinFine (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks all; I've just contacted WMF; will reply with results if they answer back.-- Quisqualis (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Georgia Supreme Court pictures

I recently uploaded pictures for the justices of the Georgia Supreme Court. Currently only the two most senior members have pictures, so I went to the official home page website of the court, downloaded the pictures of the remaining justices & uploaded them to their Wikipedia pages. The pictures were removed because I did not have the proper licensing. Can you direct me as to how I can obtain this? MIAJudges (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@MIAJudges, are you talking about the images in the most recent discussion here, or about ones you uploaded after that discussion? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

MIAJudges The best way would be to take images of the justices yourself, but that seems unlikely to occur. Images produced by US states typically do not have a compatible license. 331dot (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes exactly. The images at the bottom of the page you linked are the ones I am referring to. So you’re saying there is no way to get the proper license even though the website is run by the state of Georgia? MIAJudges (talk) 20:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

It's hard to get images of state officials that can be used on Wikipedia. It's a little easier with elected officials because political parties and campaigns sometimes make them available. I suppose you could write to the Court to request that they release images of the justices with a license compatible with Wikipedia. The odds of that happening are probably not good, but it's possible. 331dot (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for your time. Much appreciated.

MIAJudges (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

One other question. Are images from C-Span approved for Wikipedia use? I see image "David_Bunning_Confirmation.jpg" on the David Bunning page hasn't been taken down so if I can use images from there, that would help vastly.

MIAJudges (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think so, because C-Span is a private organization. 331dot (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Asked at Commons:[4]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@331dot@MIAJudges Apparently it's a bit complicated, see reply at Commons and Template:PD-CSPAN. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Interesting that the location may affect it. 331dot (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok, so it seems as long as I keep the C-SPAN logo on the screen & use the {{PD-CSPAN}} template in the licensing, then it should be fine to use. If I’m missing something, feel free to let me know. Otherwise I will post additional pictures of federal judges from C-Span similar to the one used on the David Bunning Page.

MIAJudges (talk) 13:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@MIAJudges: A file is not automatically going to be OK to license as c:Template:PD-CSPAN just because it's a screenshot from C-Span. There are certain very specific conditions that need to be satisfied. The screenshot of Bunning file that was asked about on Commons might actually end up being deleted because it doesn't satisfy those conditions, and the file probably needs to be discussed further. FWIW, the uploader might've just assumed that any screenshot from a US Congressional Committee hearing televised on C-Span was automatically OK to use, but it appears that a subtle but important distinction is being made by C-Span related to where the hearing takes place. So, it might be a good idea before you start creating and uploading screenshots to first ask about them at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright just to see what others might think. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Bunning pic now nominated for deletion:[5] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Download as PDF

I use the "Download as PDF" function a lot. Is there any way to set it to use / output in US Letter size (8-1/2" x 11") rather than the default A4 size (8.3" x 11.7")? Steve Rosenberg (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Help:Download as PDF doesn't mention the question at all, so I suspect not. ColinFine (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that that function is available unfortunately. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 02:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@Steve Rosenberg: Hi there! Have you tried using your browser's print functionality, and then choosing "Save as PDF" instead of a printer? GoingBatty (talk) 03:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. I have tried that but sometimes it mangles the layout while other times it is just fine. Having a user definable option in Wikipedia would help a lot. My memory is that during the beta test of this function about 5 years ago there was such an option, but I couldn't swear to my recollection. Steve Rosenberg (talk) 04:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Paying for Clean Edits

Hi -

I paid a guy to clean up two aging banners: one for link rot and the other for lengthy quotation. The changes were totally and strictly neutral. Now I've been hit with "$" banner, which calls my integrity into question. I wrote Bilby (User:Bilby) to get clarification. He has not answered. Should I delete the work I paid for? Happy to do so. What I do not like is being treated like some charlatan. It raises pressing questions of professional ethics.

Below is the mail I wrote Bilby (I also posted it on his Talk page as a notification). Thank you.

Dear Bilby,

I was unaware of any policy regarding editing. My goal for this last edit was strip things down in order to have the previous banners removed. I figured paying someone to do it was actually the right thing to do. Should I just go back to the previous version with the previous banners? As I say, I didn't start the page in the first place and many people other than myself have edited it. I am not skilled, however, at this kind of thing. Now I seem to have the worst case scenario, where I stand accused of buying my way onto Wikipedia - when all I wanted to do was get rid of those previous banners about link rot and lengthy quotations.

Please note, there were no changes in neutrality. I'd prefer for the page to be as neutral as possible. I'd appreciate any suggestions in that respect.

Thank you.

Brian Osgood (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Lee Oser - seems to be the article in question. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I see no one has explained yet, @Brian Osgood, so I'll give it a shot.

1. Undisclosed paid editing is against Wikipedia's Terms of Use. Disclosed paid editing is allowed, with restrictions. The person you hired made no such disclosures.

2. Editing with a conflict of interest also requires a disclosure. If you have any personal or professional relationship with the subject of the article, it would behoove you to carefully review the Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, and disclose as necessary.

3. You should not be removing paid editing tags from an article when there has, in fact, been paid editing, paid for by you. You should certainly not be edit warring over such a tag.

4. In the future, please ask questions here (or perhaps at the Teahouse) about handling issues you're not sure how to resolve. Perhaps a post on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject would have brought someone to help with the article. Perhaps you could've made an edit request on the talk page with some suggested revisions. Those options are still open. 97.126.96.89 (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy to do whatever it takes. One thing is for sure: I am 64. I stumbled into this and deeply regret it. (No intention to "war").

I would appreciate clear instructions about where to go and what to do. The Teahouse? What would a relevant WikiProject look like? Brian Osgood (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Let me add a sincere thank you. Brian Osgood (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I just posted on your talk page. Thanks again! Brian Osgood (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Brian Osgood. Perhaps it's a moot point now, but Wikipedia is a collaborative project in which all participants are WP:VOLUNTEERs. There are no on-staff editors employed by the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) to monitor content and or users. Even Wikipedia administrators and other users granted special user rights to do certain types of things are all volunteers. Occassionaly, you will come across someone who is actually employed by the WMF, but they have no special priviledges when it comes to editing. There are things like WP:OFFICEACTIONs where the WMF actually does step in to do something, but these are more of an exception than the rule. Basically, we're all equal in status except where the Wikipedia WP:COMMUNITY has decided some distinction is needed. Undisclosed paid editing is a violation of the WMF's wmf:Terms of use, which is why it's not allowed on English Wikipedia. Disclosed paid editing and COI editing are only highly discouraged, which is why they're allowed. A big part of the Wikipedia community is very suspicious of all types of paid and COI editing and feel it should all be not allowed, but as long as you follow relevant policies and guidelines when you edit you should be OK. Nobody can tell you how to spend your money, but there seem to lots of people out in the real world you will promise you the moon when it comes to Wikipedia. They may make guarantees about things that they have zero control over. They have no connection with the WMF and any agreement you enter into with them is strictly between you and them. So, make sure you're dilligent if you decide to do something like this again in the future and ask a lot of questions of these people before you agree to pay them anything. If they're being totally upfront with you, they should acknowledge the limitations they're required to edit under and explain that they can't guarantee any edits they make will never be changed by someone else. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

As they say in Italian: capisco. I get it and I'm sorry. Brian Osgood (talk) 02:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I was just trying to provide you with some more information that I thought you might find helpful. If I gave you the impression that I was admonishing you for doing something wrong, then I apologize because that wasn't my intent. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@Brian Osgood I know you have received a lot of information now, and I'm sure you understand it. I am not sure that we have answered your question about what you should do next. Unfortunately, I am not sure either, but maybe someone will give a bit more advice on what you should do next. Other editors: can the OP just manually re-do the edits that were reverted? I'm not sure whether that is OK or not. David10244 (talk) 08:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

If the OP wanted to revert the edits in question back to the last stable version of the article, then they probably could do so per WP:STATUSQUO though it would be a good idea in that case to leave an edit summary explaining why and then possibly follow that up with a more detailed explanation on the article's talk page. The OP actually seems to have already done this and nobody has reverted them back; so, it should be OK. The OP has also posted some edit requests on the articles talk page. It would seem that the OPs questions have been answered and there's nothing more to add to this thread. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Manually changing color in an electionbox?

I have been trying to make an election box in the article 2013 Allentown mayoral election. During the election there was one canidate who was running on a cross-filed Democratic and Republican ticket. As such I would like for them to have their party color in the election box to be the bi-partisan purple shade of #6004A4. However, I can't for the life of me figure out a way to make this happen. I have tried reaching out on the election box template's talk page but haven't gotten much help there. Does anyone here know how to make this edit? Scu ba (talk) 23:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I set |color = #6004A4.[6] PrimeHunter (talk) 01:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I have no idea why I didn't think of that! Scu ba (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@Scu ba: It can be hard to guess so I didn't. {{Election box winning candidate no change}} is undocumented so I looked at the source code which says style="background-color:{{{colour|{{{color|#E9E9E9}}}}}}". That means the default is #E9E9E9 and can be overridden with |colour= or |color= in the call. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)