A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Drug Wars screenshot.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. JayCubby 01:25, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Hey Belbury, I’m Ed from the Communications team at the Wikimedia Foundation. We are planning for Wikipedia’s 25th birthday celebration in January 2026, and a major part of that is sharing stories about the humans like you who make Wikipedia possible. Would you be interested in potentially contributing your story as part of the campaign? If so, please send me an email at eerhart
wikimedia.org so I can share more information. Thanks! Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
I saw you replaced the lead image at squeaky toy. The new picture is certainly cute, and it looks like you wanted one without a date stamp, although I’m not sure how important that really is. But looking more closely at the new image, I have some concerns. Mainly that I’m not sure that’s a real dog.
Looking closely at it at full size, I think it looks like a stuffed toy with hair too neat and perfect for a real dog. Added to this, the image description added by the uploader claims that it’s part chihuahua, part Yorkshire terrier, and part poodle… it’s hard to believe that from the picture. And, while I may have made a mistake, it looks to me as though the uploader has no other contributions to Wikimedia Commons or Wikipedia. Someone whose only contribution to all of Wikimedia is an odd-looking picture with an even stranger description might have been creating a hoax. So all in all, I am very suspicious of this image.
Less concerning than whether it depicts a real dog is the fact that I don’t think that the football is quite as obviously a squeaky toy as the rubber sandwich in the previous image. The sandwich looks like rubber and is clearly a squeaky toy; the football might or might not be; not all toy footballs are squeaky toys.
Have a close look, please, and tell me if you’re sure that’s a real dog. If you’re not sure, then I don’t think it should be used here, because the image has a potentially deceptive description that could undermine its use to illustrate the article. P Aculeius (talk) 03:27, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
- @P Aculeius: Good catch, I think you might be right on the dog. I’ve reverted to the old one, I’ll flag the image as questionable on Commons and have a search on Flickr for better photos some time. Belbury (talk) 09:16, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Hello, Belbury. Per your request, your account has been granted temporary-account-viewer rights. You are now able to reveal the IP addresses of individuals using temporary accounts that are not visible to the general public. This is very sensitive information that is only to be used to aid in anti-abuse workflows. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer for more information on this user right. It is important to remember:
- You must not share IP address data with someone who does not have the same access permissions unless disclosure is permissible as per guidelines listed at Foundation:Policy:Wikimedia Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy.
- Access must not be used for political control, to apply pressure on editors, or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to investigate a temporary user. Note that using multiple temporary accounts is not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of policies (for example, block or ban evasion).
It is also important to note that the following actions are logged for others to see:
- When a user accepts the preference that enables or disables IP reveal for their account.
- Revealing an IP address of a temporary account.
- Listing the temporary accounts that are associated with one or more IP addresses (using the CIDR notation format).
Remember, even if a user is violating policy, avoid revealing personal information if possible. Use temporary account usernames rather than disclosing IP addresses directly, or give information such as same network/not same network or similar. If you do not want the user right anymore then please ask me or another administrator and it will be removed for you. You may also voluntarily give up access at any time by visiting Special:Preferences. Happy editing! Sohom (talk) 13:46, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Modern social democracy supports capitalism with welfare and regulation AnAnonymousUser222 (talk) 14:07, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
- The definition is under discussion on the talk page. It’s been running for a while so I’ve requested that somebody take a look at weighing up the outcome of the discussion and close it. Belbury (talk) 14:10, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
I saw your report at WP:AIV. I’ve blocked this person for 48 hours, trying very hard to assume good faith. If problems recur, you’re welcome to ping me directly. Joyous! Noise! 23:23, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Hiya, what’s the name of that first welcome/info template you placed on Flagshiphooligan’s chat page?Halbared (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Halbared: Hi, it’s {{uw-unsourced1}}.
- Talk page warning templates always include their own name in their source code (
<!-- Template:uw-unsourced1 -->in this case), so if you’re curious about others you can edit the talk page to see what a particular template is called. - It’s used by the useful talk page warning plugin Wikipedia:Twinkle, if you’re looking at ways to employ warning templates. Belbury (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you.Halbared (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
Dear @Belbury
Thank you for reaching out. I have seen and answered your notification in my talk page, please check the long version there.
The short version is that academic editors have a set of rules in Wikipedia, especially Wikipedia:ACADEME and helpful advice here: Help:Academic. For an academic, Wikipedia:COI it is not COI to publish about the topics one knows about as long as it follows Wikipedia rules, which usually involve the following three, specifically: Wikipedia:RS Wikipedia:NPOV and WP:FRINGE.
For article creation, I created a page of a topic I know very well: Disinformation research, but I did it using Wikipedia:AfC and it took almost a year of editors rejecting drafts. MexFin (talk) 08:51, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
Would you be willing to take a look at this draft: User:Valereee/Steak sandwich (Australia)
Feel free to edit it, it’s in my user space just because that’s where I always start drafts. Valereee (talk) 13:38, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Valereee: Looks good! The news stories about Qantas and the Australian Open seem enough to establish notability. I’ve found a photo on Flickr to illustrate the article.
- Did the sources you were finding generally back up the idea that the sandwich is mainly an Australian thing? Belbury (talk) 13:50, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, this particular version is different from similarly-named sandwiches in the UK and US, and a couple of sources called it an iconic or classic Aussie sandwich, tho since that wasn’t in the best sources, I didn’t use that. Great, I’ll go ahead and move and we can start making adjustments on other articles. Thanks! Valereee (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
I cited solid evidence, DO NOT delete if you can actually read! Elijahsaidfive (talk) 09:25, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Elijahsaidfive: The aspect of the article you edited is the subject of an open RFC at Talk:Matcha, please join that discussion rather than editing the article unilaterally. Belbury (talk) 09:28, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Hello, I’m just curious, I’ve noticed that there have been concerns about AI Upscaling. Just wondering, is it the increase in resolution that is the issue or the colourisation? ***Adam*** (talk) 20:05, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Adam.J.W.C., it’s the speculative addition of detail (which could be pixels or color), which is the issue. There are some programs (e.g. FBCNN) which use some form of AI to enhance images in a more acceptable manner, but even ‘accurate’ programs can introduce error (Topaz DeNoise is a good example). Look closely at the text on File:Map of the World edited by Charlesjsharp.jpg.
- For upscaling, take for example File:OriginalSRGAN.png and the transformed File:Real-srgan.png. JayCubby 20:24, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Adam.J.W.C.: Yes, it’s both, and they raise the same kind of question.
- MOS:COLORIZED photos have been an issue for as long as Wikipedia has been around, as the accuracy depends on who has chosen the colours. It can be acceptable if it’s been done by an expert, or if the image has been taken from a published source, but if the colorising is the work of an amateur editor, Wikipedia is cautious about using it. (AI colorisation would be considered to be at the amateur level, since it often lacks historical context for the image that it’s colorising.)
- MOS:AIUPSCALED is a similar problem, as the answer to the question of who is choosing the missing details is usually “an AI that’s been trained on 21st century portrait photos”. If you give an AI upscaler a low quality newspaper photo of a 1920s British movie star, you’ll tend to get back the AI’s guess at what that person might look like if they were alive and American today – their teeth will be straightened and whitened, their makeup modernised, their line of sight corrected to look straight at the camera, a skin blemish removed on the assumption that it was a blotch on the paper, etc. The scope for added details varies, but the line that Wikipedia takes is just to avoid upscaling entirely, for historical photos. Belbury (talk) 20:29, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, I’ll have a think about it and get back to you after work. ***Adam*** (talk) 20:44, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
- Okay. I’d recommend the discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump (proposals)/Archive 220#Proposal to clarify WP:AIGI in line with MOS:AIUPSCALE for giving some further angles and examples on this. If there are any particular uploads of your own that you’d like to talk about, feel free to. Belbury (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Hi! I was wondering if you could expand on why you undid the whole section of “social implications of COVID-19” in the doomscrolling article? I’m a student in WikiEdu and would like more clarification so that I can make the proper edits and add it back in. Allenhaci (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Allenhaci: Hi! If you click “View history” you can see a log of edits made to any article, usually with reasons given for each edit. In this case the short three-sentence section about COVID seemed to be repeating a point that had already been made in another section of the article. Belbury (talk) 14:39, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
- Looking at it, I see what you mean. Rather than creating the whole section, do you think it’s viable for me to rewrite and add the sentence surrounding agency and productivity in the “control seeking” subsection? I think it could help to strengthen it. Thank you for the clarification! Allenhaci (talk) 14:49, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Allenhaci: It seems to me that it’s already covered by the lines
during uncertain times, people are likely to engage in doomscrolling as a way to help them gather information and a sense of mastery over the situation. This is done by people to reinforce their belief that staying informed, and in control will provide them with protection from grim situations
, but if you think the section would benefit from more detail, sure, go ahead. Belbury (talk) 14:53, 20 November 2025 (UTC)- Okay sounds good. I will rewrite it and see if it adds detail, and also discuss with my group for insight as well. Thanks again! Allenhaci (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Allenhaci: It seems to me that it’s already covered by the lines
- Looking at it, I see what you mean. Rather than creating the whole section, do you think it’s viable for me to rewrite and add the sentence surrounding agency and productivity in the “control seeking” subsection? I think it could help to strengthen it. Thank you for the clarification! Allenhaci (talk) 14:49, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Hi, my bad; I only removed half the entry – but on reflection almost the whole section is trivial so I have done a cleanup. Aye, Springnuts (talk) 22:53, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Hi Belbury, I’m a former student of Ted Ladd. I loved his class and so follow him. He shares his research with me, but I do not work for him or have any conflict of interest. I used AI to format the text that I wrote. Do you have suggestions for me? Harmonyinsnow (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Hi Belbury, I noticed your comment on my talk page. I wanted to say I only removed edits that I found very vague or did not seem like they were contributing anything meaningful to the article. Hithisismeandmywikiusername (talk) 17:39, 3 December 2025 (UTC)Hithisismeandmywikiusername
- @Hithisismeandmywikiusername: Hi, my comment on your talk page related to this edit of yours which removed a line about newspapers being credible and added:
Memes have only recently been accepted as being useful to the development of society, even though they have been around for a while. Many memes are a big part of internet culture, even if they haven’t been around that long. On the internet, a meme active for 5 minutes can be a long time, depending on how users react to it.
- I didn’t feel that the text you’d written there was very clear or helpful. Belbury (talk) 17:53, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Hi, I’m thinking of making an edit, but I’m afraid to do it, so I’m asking for your help and advice before making this change. I’ve been working on an article called Devastaions of Osorio. This article discusses the reason why the island of Hispaniola was divided into two: the Dominican Republic and Haiti.
Many Wikipedia articles about the history of Haiti state that Haiti’s history began in 1492 with the arrival of Christopher Columbus. However, the article on the Devastaions of Osorio. prooves that this is false. Haiti’s history began in 1605 with Osorio’s Devastations, not in 1492. I want to make this change, but I’m afraid my account will be deleted for doing so.
Could you guide me on what I should do?
have a nice day Risantana (talk) 03:16, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Risantana: Hi, I’d suggest starting a discussion thread on the talk page of whichever article seems most relevant to that issue, perhaps Talk:Haiti. Belbury (talk) 09:28, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
I think this was a very good idea, but also kind of technically brilliant too. Kudos! Tito Omburo (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Tito Omburo: It’s a great animation, but by no means my work! The gif was previously embedded as part of the sidebar below it, I moved it out because that sidebar isn’t visible to mobile users. Belbury (talk) 15:58, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- No, absolutely the animation is great, lol. Your edit was great in a totally different way! Tito Omburo (talk)•
The guy is ignoring multiple warnings, and despite once joining the discussion has reverted to edit-warring. What do you think needs to be done now? Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:54, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Chiswick Chap: WP:ANEW, I was just waiting to see whether they’d engage on the talk page or not. I’ll file a report shortly. Belbury (talk) 13:16, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:43, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
