Help desk
< December 11	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 13 >

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.

December 12

Please can the Swiss and Nepalese flags not be distorted when thumbnail versions are used?

The flags of Switzerland and Nepal do not fit the usual rectangular shape. When they are shown in thumbnail format, e.g. on international football pages, the flags are distorted, so that they look more rectangular. Please can it be fixed so that the thumbnails of these flags maintain their proper dimensions.

See for example the flag thumbnails on these pages:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_FIFA_World_Cup_qualification_(UEFA)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_FIFA_World_Cup_qualification_(AFC)

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:98:104B:3BB3:0:0:9A03:1501 (talk) 05:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid I don't get what you're saying. I've looked at the first of those on both my computer and my phone, and the Swiss flag looks square to me, as it should be. ColinFine (talk) 10:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In mobile view on my laptop the Swiss flag is square in the "Summary" section, but rectangular in the "Seeding" section. The former uses {{fb-big}} whereas the latter uses {{fb}}. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a specific example to {{fb}} and {{fb-big}} to demonstrate aspect preservation. Both show a square image for Switzerland, the same as here:

Switzerland using {{fb}}
Switzerland using {{fb-big}}

Bazza (talk) 11:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still seeing the same. In desktop view both are square, but in mobile view {{fb}} (the top one in your example) is displayed as rectangular. This distinction happens on my Android phone, and with 3 different browsers on my Windows laptop. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@David Biddulph Both are square in the desktop view, and in the Android Wikipedia app. In the mobile view the {{fb}} version is rectangular. Chrome report the image's intrinsic size as 16 x 16 px, but its rendered size as 25 × 16 px. The img is inside a span.flagicon element. The {{fb-big}} version has no such containing element. The page's styling has a setting min-width: 25px; for .flagicon img, which seems to be the culprit. This is set in the page's head's style tag, so some techy help will be needed to find out why and fix it. Bazza (talk) 14:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the Teahouse. :P —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

bill browning "dark hollow" entry

Bill Browning Entry is my article but I am not cited or credited. It is a verbatim reprint of my article "Bill Browning: The Forgotten Man Behind 'Dark Hollow'" printed in the 2017 edition of "The International Country Music Journal." 2600:1700:D020:1AE0:872:E854:3329:E922 (talk) 06:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this is about the article Bill Browning? Its referencing needs some work. Maproom (talk) 08:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Afaict, per [1] you are more or less correct and that is against WP rules. @Anachronist or other admin, does the article history need revdels? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:17, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems someone copypasted your article into wp in 2019 [2] and it has essentially stayed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I don't think it's practical to revdel all that history, particularly since the diff you found did contain credit to the original author. I have removed or rewritten the remaining copyvio content and cited the source above mentioned by the OP. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I noted that the editor wasn't trying to hide anything. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia a non-profit?

Why is Wikipedia a non-profit? Couldn't they achieve what they have and even more while being for-profit? Wouldn't not having to rely on donations give them more room to do even more amazing things? Teffin (talk) 06:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They (the Wikimedia Foundation) don't rely on our donations. They have far more money than they need to keep Wikipedia running and expanding. They spend much of it on things that they may consider amazing. Maproom (talk) 08:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In general @Maproom:, if you're answering Helpdesk/Teahouse, the answer should either be non-disputed, note it as one aspect, or provide other positions for a rounded answer Nosebagbear (talk)

@Teffin: I'm not directly sure if your query is actually intending to be "for profit" or just to not ask for donations (presumably running ads or utilising subscriptions etc). The former is now impossible - a for-profit fork could start-up, using our dataset for their initial articles, but the Wikimedia Foundation can't convert to a for-profit company. We could, legally, run ads - it's a perennial proposal. A list for and against ads can be found at those links. It's a little out of data as it was a user gathered list from a decade back, but most still hold up. My personal estimate, and one I hear a lot, is that a huge fraction of the established editor base would walk in such a case. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"the Wikimedia Foundation can't convert to a for-profit company" I'm a bit confused by this. Could you possibly explain where you're finding something that says a non-profit can't change to a for-profit? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi protected page edit request

I asked for this edit request a week ago. Till now no response. Can anybody do it. 103.154.37.79 (talk) 08:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That looks to me like a very constructive request. But I know nothing about films or WP's policies concerning them. I hope another Help desk host will have a look. Maproom (talk) 08:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided reliable sources for it. Read sources. You only need to change X to Y. 103.154.37.79 (talk) 08:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no. "Read sources"? I looked at the first one, for the film took a grand opening at the box office in August 2012. I have to look at it, because until I do, I don't understand "take a grand opening". (I'd guess "have a good opening", but am not sure.) The link seems to be to the augustly titled Times of India, which I believe is infamous for paid adulatory reviews. But actually the link is to a video. Oh dear, I think, do I have to spend time watching a video? But that problem kind of evaporates when I'm told "Video not available". -- Hoary (talk) 08:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for first link, video not available. But rest all links are working. Leave first line and do others. You can ask me if you have any doubts. 103.166.245.200 (talk) 09:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You might need to revise your request to remove the broken link, and remove the material that the link supports. The second reference is also Times of India, which is not a reliable source. David10244 (talk) 08:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@David10244: I've revised and removed Times of India source. Please do it. 103.154.37.42 (talk) 12:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You said that you have removed the source, then you ask me to do it. This is confusing, and I am not inclined to edit someone else's edit request. The Tines of India source is still in the edit request. I will let you remove it. David10244 (talk) 14:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@David10244: I already removed. But somebody reverted my edit. Now you check this. Please. 103.154.37.38 (talk) 14:30, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am not inclined to edit someone else's edit request. Maybe someone else will do it. David10244 (talk) 04:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Am I permitted to use ChatGPT to help me contribute to Wikipedia?

ChatGPT is a new technology that can write anything, and I am impressed at its accuracy and clarity. Can I use it to help me write content, provided that I find reliable sources by myself to back up its claims? Thanks! Félix An (talk) 10:43, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ChatGPT is a chatbot so I don't see how it would help you write Wikipedia content, but as long as you can back up the content with reliable sources there might not be a problem. Does it harvest content from Wikipedia? I note that ChatGPT's factual accuracy (when answering questions) has been criticized. Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Félix An: That might be forbidden by WP:BOTPOL, but I would question whether it is wise even if allowed.

"Write first, source later" is a major failure mode for newcomers. The problem is that it takes as much or more time to fix the errors in the first draft than to write it from scratch. In their case it’s because of notability requirements, but I feel you will have a similar problem with verifiability. Currently, ChatGPT is very good at well-written sentences that confidently assert utter falsities.

Even if you pay attention to sourcing, there is a problem of confirmation bias. Suppose ChatGPT writes that X is caused by Y. You diligently search "Y causes X", you find a source, you add it. All good? Well, maybe there is a controversy in the scientific literature about the cases of X, but the search string you used (premised on the answer you expected) only showed one side of the results.

As an example, I searched for "volcanism caused dinosaur extinction". Of the ten top results, half says that volcanism did cause extinction, the other half are somewhere between "maybe, there’s still controversy" and "it was a significant contributing factor though maybe not the only one". Those are serious-looking sources like this one, not crank blog posts, but those are still a minority viewpoint. For reference, the current scientific consensus is that an asteroid impact was the main cause; there is still debate about how much volcanism contributed but (as of 2022) it is not believed to be the main cause of the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 11:17, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Félix An: "can write anything", sure. "Clarity", sure. "Accuracy", definitely not. ChatGPT can write total bullshit, while sounding well-informed and convincing.

Example of bullshit

Suppose you roll two six-sided dice. What is the probability that both dice show an even number?

The probability that both dice show an even number is 3/6 = 1/2.

Can you explain why?

Yes. There are six possible outcomes when rolling two six-sided dice: (1,1), (1,2), (2,1), (2,2), (3,3), and (4,4). Of these six outcomes, three of them show an even number on both dice: (2,2), (3,3), and (4,4). Therefore, the probability of both dice showing an even number is 3/6 = 1/2.

So, don't use it to contribute to Wikipedia. And don't believe it if it offers to sell you a bridge. Maproom (talk) 11:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't done math in a long time... Is the answer 1/4? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ~~1/2~~ 1/4 is correct. ChatGPT's claim that there are six possible outcomes from throwing two dice is wrong. So is its apparent belief that 3 is even. Maproom (talk) 12:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean 1/4 is correct? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And double sixes are impossible, bad news for board game players etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:43, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at WT:Teahouse#ChatGPT tries to answer Teahouse questions which is relevant. If by "contribute to Wikipedia" one means "answer routine Teahouse questions" there may well be a role for ChatGPT, once it has an API. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mythology Imagery

Are there any official policy pages around what imagery to use in articles about mythological gods, for the purpose of showing the god visually, or, more likely, some broader policy that applies here? User1042 (talk) 12:17, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@User1042, I don't think so, beyond WP:LEADIMAGE and WP:CONSENSUS. I like ancient and beautiful, myself. Noted works of art or at least artists if you can get them, but of course ancient stuff will often have unknown artists. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Passing off

Someone is regularly signing in to Wikipedia and deliberately changing the URL of Precious Wilson's official website, and passing off as Precious Wilson who was the original lead singer of the 70s Soul/Pop/Disco band Eruption, to mislead people.

This action of misrepresentation is damaging Precious Wilson's ability to earn from her body of work, and is affecting her business, causing financial and reputational damage.

We are happy to provide proof and evidence from the record company, producers etc. that www.preciouswilson.com is the official website of the real artist, who is based in London, England in the UK, and not in Eastern Europe.

Each time the URL is corrected back to www.preciouswilson.com. Whoever is adding this misinformation, changes it back to the fraudulent URL www.preciouswilsoneruption

How can this be prevented? We would appreciate your assistance SugarandSpice (talk) 12:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the person making these changes has also been changing, and adding, the URLs for other artists' "official" web sites. Maybe some fraud is involved. I wonder if there's someone, here or in the WMF, who knows how best to handle things when it seems that Wikipedia is being used for fraud? Maproom (talk) 13:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SugarandSpice, if you are being paid by Precious Wilson, then you are required to disclose this on your user page per WP:PAID. Wikimedia accounts may only be controlled by one person. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 13:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Qostik has not been editing recently. I suspect they may have stopped, or more likely moved on to another account. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 13:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Qostik's most recent edit (a few weeks ago) was reverted, but subsequently a similar edit was made by Special:Contributions/2001:7D0:4C00:5F00:895E:DD41:1FD8:991E. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The website link was previously changed by Filipoks on 13 May 2022. TSventon (talk) 14:16, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I am Precious Wilson.

This is why it is so upsetting.

It all started because my management and I refused to sign to their agency exclusively.

They even have a fake WhatApp "chat with us" on the fake site.

We have written to Google and the domain name provider and have had with no response.

But at least if they can be prevented from removing my official website URK link from Wikipedia, that would be a big help. SugarandSpice (talk) 13:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@sugarandspice: you can revert the edit yourself, see help:reverting for how. lettherebedarklight 晚安 15:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lettherebedarklight Thank you. SugarandSpice (talk) 15:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Existing Wiki page update

Dear Wikipedia, There has been a Wikipedia page that was created on me a few years ago. I made an attempt to correct and update it and apparently done something incorrectly. I am new to this and don’t want the page to go away for my lack of experience in editing. I have citable sources on all the updates, but don’t know how to include them. Can you help!? Many thanks, Gregg Field 2603:8001:A401:3630:44B2:637D:51EB:5865 (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You should not be editing the article directly, you can submit suggestions on the article's talk page with the {{request edit}} template and a reliable source. If you tell us which article it is we can help you further. Theroadislong (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is presumably about Gregg Field. Gregg, please read WP:AUTOPROB for some guidance. ColinFine (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to create your own app

So I want to create my own app that will be answering all questions needed to be answered by teenagers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.115.111.133 (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck. I'm not clear why you are asking on the Wikipedia help desk. ColinFine (talk) 17:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right; teenagers have an infinite supply of questions. David10244 (talk) 04:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help with template

I'm trying to improve the WP:PODCASTING WikiProject layout and discovered the subpage Wikipedia:WikiProject Podcasting/to do. The subpage uses template:Help Out, which uses the following line to display the WikiProject talk page: Check the [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|talk page]] for requests for help. However, the template was added to a subpage, not the main page. So it appears redlinked because it is trying to wikilink to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Podcasting/to do. If I wanted to keep the help out template on the subpage is there a way to make the template link to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Podcasting instead or maybe just suppress the line that mentions the talk page? Or is that way too much trouble and should I just move the help out template to the main page? TipsyElephant (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It looks to me as if [[{{TALKSPACE}}:{{BASEPAGENAME}}]] might do it. ColinFine (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine: Would it be acceptable for me to change the template or would that cause lots of issues? Should I just recommend it on the talk page? Do you know if there is a way that I could just change it for this particular situation instead of changing the template? TipsyElephant (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to just go for it and see what happens. It doesn't look like many pages use the template and it's explicitly intended for WikiProject pages so it shouldn't cause any serious issues. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted a draft, how long does the review take before it is moved to live?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ron_Fleming Randybirdhawk (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have not submitted for review yet? I would suggest you remove Blurb books and YouTube, they are not reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 19:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Randybirdhawk. Vast swathes of your draft are unreferenced and therefore fail the core content policy of Verifiability. Either provide references or remove the unreferenced content. Cullen328 (talk) 19:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will work on it. This artist started in the late 40's before the internet. If I can find news publications that are paper archives how do I use those as cites? Randybirdhawk (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Randybirdhawk you could use the {{Cite News}} template. It doesn't have to be online; you just need the author, title of the article, name of the newspaper or other publication, date of the publication, and page number. There are other optional paramenters too, but that's the minimum. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Randybirdhawk (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Randybirdhawk, references need not be online. Please read Wikipedia:Offline sources. You want to provide the name of the publication, the title of the article, the name of the author if available, the publication date, the page number, and the city if it is not part of of the name of the publication. Cullen328 (talk)

Template:Age in years, months, weeks and days issue

Hi everyone,

There was question on Serbian Wikipedia from one of the users in regards to this template not working if you enter number 31 for a day of the start of the event. I have tried it personally in my sandbox and I have the same issue. I am getting an error "Need valid year, month, day"

All the other days work and it does not working for any of the months.

Has anyone else experienced the same issue ?

Боки ✉ 19:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please give an example of which dates are not working. If I use month1=1 and day1=31 it works for me. RudolfRed (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RudolfRed Thanks for checking it for me. I did test on my sandbox on Serbian Wikipedia. This is where you will be able to see the error mentioned. I have checked the code and I did not see anything wrong with it (I could be wrong).

Боки ✉ 22:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tried it here on en wikipedia {{Age in years, months, weeks and days |month1 = 07|day1 = 31|year1 = 2022 |month2 = 12|day2 = 12| year2 = 2022}} and it produces "4 months, 1 week and 5 days". You will need to ask at the Serbian Wikipedia why it is not working there. RudolfRed (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RudolfRed I am interface administrator of Serbian Wikipedia so I'm the one that was asked :) I have tried myself to see why is it not working and I could not figure out hence why I wanted to ask if someone else has experienced the same issue. Боки ✉ 22:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The English Template:Age in years, months, weeks and days has one line invoking a module. The Serbian sr:Template:Age in years, months, weeks and days has a lot of template code. It's completely different and I haven't heard of issues here. This is an issue with code at the Serbian Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter **le sigh** I was looking at something completely different trying to "play around"

Issue fixed !

Thanks !!!

Боки ✉ 23:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright of a modified image.

Is the blurring of faces on an image significant enough modification that results in a new copyright for the now modified image? 2600:6C54:7E00:C2:24BF:BDDB:DBE3:4388 (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert on copyright but my guess is that it's roughly still the same image, just modified, so the original copyright would still apply, hopefully there are other editors with more experience on the subject if I'm wrong about your question. StarryNightSky11 ^☎ 20:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After a google search one website result stated: "If you edit an image that you didn't create, copyright law still applies. The only way to avoid copyright infringement with images is to create unique works, purchase a licence to use an image or find a free-to-use image."

So my answer above is probably right, plus input from another user with more experience would be appreciated. StarryNightSky11 ^☎ 20:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this is about a disagreement at Talk:Larry Vickers. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is. The question is not whether those 2 images violated copyright or not (it was discovered that they did, I agreed and the images were deleted from the commons), the argument was about my question stated above. A Dispute Resolution editor falsely accused me of edit-warring and a third opinion page editor did not even follow third opinion guidelines with my request. So I came here.2600:6C54:7E00:C2:24BF:BDDB:DBE3:4388 (talk) 21:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The best place to ask here on English Wikipedia would be WP:MCQ. There are probably more experts over at Commons, but I don't know of a specific place where they hang out over yonder. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be c:COM:VPC. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 22:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When you blurred the faces, you created a new work, called a "derived work". The copyright on the original still applies to the derived work. In addition, if the blurring is creative (which it well may be) then you own the copyright on that derivation. A third party would need two licenses to publish this derived work, one from the original copyright holder and one from you. -Arch dude (talk) 03:42, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What if only 5 faces in the image are blurred out? Is that enough creative modification that results in a new copyright?

Also what if the unmodified image can't be found and the author of the blurring modification is unknown? Should that image be used on wikipedia or not? 2600:6C54:7E00:C2:24BF:BDDB:DBE3:4388 (talk) 13:30, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe and maybe. It couldn't be put on Commons, but if the non-free content criteria were met, it could still be hosted locally. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For Commons, you need licenses for BOTH the original AND the derivation. If you cannot find the original you cannot find its license either, so you cannot put the derived work onto Commons. If the work to create the derivation, (i.e., the blurring) is "creative" then this work is copyrighted and you ALSO need a license from the person who did the blurring. Whether or not it is "creative" is a judgement call that we cannot make based purely on your description. If you cannot determine the creator(s), then the image lacks provenance: you have no way to know if it's a total fake, so we should not use it on Wikipedia. -Arch dude (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all. 2600:6C54:7E00:C2:24BF:BDDB:DBE3:4388 (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

wikopedia asking for donations

id like to adress the recent messages i got asking to donate, well i have a problem with that because there have been some unfairly censored articles to my interest so to get my sopport id need wikipedia's support that articled and certain people editing those articles are not banned from editing , is that a promise if i donate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.210.18 (talk) 20:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not. Donating will have no effect on our policies. If you have further questions, feel free to direct them to the Wikimedia Foundation, who are the ones collecting money and spending it. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. Donations do not determine content. email donate(@)wikimedia.org for any other questions about donating. RudolfRed (talk) 20:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately no that promise could not be made, requesting users be free from a ban / block in exchange for payment probably constitutes bribery and would conflict with one or multiple Wikipedia policies. Sorry StarryNightSky11 ^☎ 20:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a promise that will never be granted. Wikipedia does not censor content based on viewpoint. We do summarize independent reliable sources- and what that is can be a matter of debate with certain topics, but that's not censorship. 331dot (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright question

Any suggestions on where to look for guidance on the copyright status of the maps (beginning page 11) in this PDF of a California court decision?

URL: http://pw.lacounty.gov/sur/nas/County_Abstracts/7288779.pdf

They are maps of the various subdivisions that were annexed to the city of Los Angeles and they would be very helpful for various history articles. Thanks in advance. jengod (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jengod, WP:MCQ would be a good place to ask. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 23:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

perfection! Thank you User: 199.208.172.35! jengod (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]