Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Moderators' noticeboard/Archive 5

Hello everyone, this is more of a general question than one for mods but the Stub template, Incomplete template, Tone template and SloppyAI template all have the same layout code (with the box being coloured on the incomplete and sloppyai template being the only exception, but codewise is the same). I'm wondering if people would think it is a good idea if I replicate this code for its own template and replace all the code there with just the template. It would be much easier to work on, but it may be harder to add new special things on without changing the template used by it.

TL;DR is making a template to use the code used from the stub templates just to make it easier to make new ones or change existing ones okay? AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 17:07, 12 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

That could be a good idea, yeah. Honestly if you're comfortable editing that kind of stuff, anything you could do to make the notices smaller and less obtrusive would be appreciated as well. I'm happy to help with text editing and stuff on them but I'm a bit useless if I have to mess around with css Keith (talk) 14:40, 14 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Making them smaller might require a complete restructure for some, but maybe with smaller text it is fine? I'd need to test it out to see if it doesn't make it hard to read. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Keith, just wondering what you think of these two variants of the incomplete tag and if the idea works at all for making them smaller. I haven't changed div tags at all, but it is just a simple thing to make it smaller. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 20:26, 19 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think making them smaller will be more to do with reducing their title text size, and maybe boldness, to be less in-your-face (but still obvious. perhaps more like the 'revision as of...' box you can see if you click the link to the variants you just posted Keith (talk) 00:54, 20 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Ah I don't know much about how to do CSS, and therefore can't do that, but I could just try looking at some resources online to figure it out like how I learned HTML. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 06:17, 20 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Keith Had another go at it here and although it definitely isn't perfect, I just want to know what you think of it before I continue. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Obviously the spacing needs to come in a bit from the side, but it's certainly closer to what we want! I think changing 'incomplete' to 'verification concerns' or something might make sense (since that's what it's usually used for) Keith (talk) 21:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Just my 2 cents... I like that it says incomplete and has fields to specify. I find myself using it for things beyond verification, such as how to improve the language, structure, etc. Basically I've been using it as a catch-all, which I know is against what it's intended for, but I've also noticed some users actually commit to those specific changes because it shows how an article could be improved with small efforts.

I have not been active lately, so I'm not completely certain what improvements @AnotherConsumerRightsPerson has been making to the other templates. But I think going broad could be good, while having input fields for mods or whoever to specify the issues. Beanie Bo (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I haven't made any other changes to templates except for deleting a couple, but I have to agree that the incomplete template is often used for what it isn't meant to be used for, but does make sense why; I thought for a while that it was just for articles that are better than stubs, but still need to be marked. It isn't clear by nature as it currently is on what it does unless you read the read more bit. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Keith @Beanie Bo The latest one I did hasn't really done much, but I'd say it is an improvement over the last one. I'm trying to figure out how to make text from the issue params not go right on the border right now, as that really sabotages accessibility. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi, since the Smartwool EULA incident is on "Highlighted Article", I would like to ask if there's any more tone issues; and if there are, some guidance/assistance on fixing them. Thank you for your time! Raster (talk) 04:09, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

After a quick read, tone seems okay, but if you do want to help out, I think expanding it is a great step forward, as it is currently quite small. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 09:12, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I guess the main thing it's missing are some 'public response' bits going over public/commentator reaction to it happening Keith (talk) 11:35, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I was tired at the time I posted this, and didn't realize Keith had removed said notice 6 minutes after my edit asking for it, so the pointers are appreciated.

I remember searching a bit for public reaction, and mostly got reddit posts pointing back to the Rossmann video. Maybe someday I'll know what search terms to punch into Duckduckgo. Raster (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

If that is what comes up, it's more likely there are no sources imo and was only talked about by King Louis. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Regarding my article on Bahnhof, I have all the emails mentioned in the article, and I can share them with you. I also have other direct communications with the CEO (who is also the media contact). I did not mention those in the article to avoid making it personal.

However, I have no idea whether customers are facing the same treatment or just me, and I did not see any media reporting on it, therefore I can not get you a confirmation from a second source.

I published this article as consumer advocacy and to start documenting this company's abuse of their own terms of services.

I am sorry my article did not meet your standards. I could not find how to delete it, so please go ahead and delete it from your site. Se (talk) 09:40, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've deleted it, but just wanted to let you know that if you do find good sources, you're welcome to recreate the article or ask me to undelete it for you to get the version as of when it was deleted. Also, most articles I see get deleted for similar reasons, so you're not alone. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 10:13, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't think there's any need to delete the article as it is - the content which is currently there is supported by the corren article. I think what @AnotherConsumerRightsPerson was referring to in their edit notice was specifically the sentence that he removed? Keith (talk) 11:14, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Ok nvm I was getting confused and believed that this was referring to this article: Stångåstaden kickbacks and hidden rent which also mentions bahnhof Keith (talk) 11:15, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

having reviewed the actual article this was about, I'd tend to agree with the deletion for now. If @Se can get this story in front of news orgs or major blogs or similar who can confirm it and back it up and who treat it as a story worth publishing, then we can reconsider but for now it's more of a user report, and this wiki is not intended to be the first port of call for reporting things - instead we aim to be a collection of well-documented articles that can hold up to a bit of outside scrutiny. Keith (talk) 11:21, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Keith @JakeL @UntoK I've changed lots of links, including the ones in the sidebar, because there seems to be a backend update changing the name for CRW talk pages. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 06:30, 30 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Please change this yourself next time if you don't mind, as it's been a bit of a pain going through the links throughout the last 25 minutes! AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 06:45, 30 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

wait, that shouldn't have happened... The projects namespace was supposed to be a new empty one to use for projects, not a name-change of an existing namespace? I'll talk to Unto about it and see what happened Keith (talk) 09:58, 30 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for noticing and making things work again! This seems to have been a bug that caused some cursed mediawiki spaghetti interactions. should hopefully have it resolved shortly, and then we'll revert all changes. Keith (talk) 10:07, 30 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Should we display a MediaWiki:Sitenotice while it's happening? Because I got very confused by this and ended up checking the logs to see if it was accidentally moved here. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 10:19, 30 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Ok, Unto's sorted the bug, and I think between us we've un-changed the links. Sorry about all this, and the double reversion on the Incomplete page! Keith (talk) 10:43, 30 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

It's okay. I've also got some screenshots of me witnessing what's happening, I'll upload them now. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 10:44, 30 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

How did it affect the Oneplus page GoInfo was working on? that seems doubly weird if it did anything there Keith (talk) 10:45, 30 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

They said this just now:

It complained my "stashed changes" didn't exist, and whenever I went back to the page, those changes appeared again. Had to copy all the changes, discard the edit, and reformat the article again for it to be accepted. Seems all good now. Timing's a Biatch sometimes ay

That seems very unusual. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 10:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Ok, hopefully I think that should just be what happened as a result of an edit being in progress while Unto pushed the change, rather than anything to do with the changes themselves. Keith (talk) 10:49, 30 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Ah okay. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 10:49, 30 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

You might not be able to change this, but Special:NewPages and my watchlist has been completely cleared. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 11:00, 30 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Having a look, it looks like watchlist and also the Special:RecentChanges are cut off as of two days ago. Also the NewUserMessage actions are showing up there despite the human(not bot) filter being auto-enabled. I have no idea why this might be the case but I'll pass it on to unto Keith (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Also did you get what you wanted to do done? Or did you not get the project namespace finished? Doesn't look like it but just curious lol AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 11:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Looks like you did! AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 11:17, 30 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

haven't put the projects in the projects namespace yet, will be doing that in the next day or so, but I think things are technically working as they should Keith (talk) 11:21, 30 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

hey there, not sure I'm allowed to post here but here's what happened exactly :

• created my account
• created new "product" page for OnePlus AI
• while creating it, I got kicked out (it said my session was expired). Checked and I was indeed logged out after next reload of the page
• the product page was created anyway
• went to edit the product page to add all the descriptions and contents, wrote the whole article in one go
• when trying to publish, I got "non-existing stashed changes <uuid>" or something similiar, couldn't publish, couldn't go to "edit source".
• logged out, back in, the page was still empty
• when I went back to the "edit" page, the wiki page re-added my last changes and I basically lost no work on it
• still couldn't publish for the same error
• what I had to do was copy the whole contents, cancel the edit, go back to the product page and create a new edit (it asked if I wanted to discard my previous changes or keep them, I discarded), re-formatted the whole article, and it was then golden

I'm assuming my edit session got deleted on the server-side somehow but was still existing on my client-side and it got desynced that way. Don't think there's much you need to do regarding that issue, but if you're working on the backend, I would freeze all edits to avoid that in the future GOinfo (talk) 11:36, 30 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, apologies for this - I think it got caught in the middle of a hotfix. Im the one who's to blame here because I asked Unto to 'just add a feature quickly for me, don't wait for the next patch to be ready'. I'll try to refrain from this in future unless it's properly urgent! Keith (talk) 12:34, 2 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

(Google Mobile Services). I made the page because GMS is a powerful "card" that google uses to preserve (and grow) its monopoly. They incentivize Android app developers to depend on google-libraries and APIs. Pretty much every app on Play-Store depends so much on Play-Services that they refuse to do any basic tasks (discord and whatsapp are examples, last time I checked). I believe GMS doesn't get enough attention, and google wants it to stay that way.

However, I do agree that the article is very anemic in its current state. But I thought it was a good idea to centralize all knowledge about GMS, so that its relationships can be shown in a link-graph ("What Links Here", and similar stuff) Rudxain (talk) 05:15, 2 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've appended the deletion notice with something saying 'don't delete yet, we're discussing it here'. I think if you can find/add one or two non-wikipedia sources that discuss it being an issue, that would be sufficient to keep it as a stub and get rid of the deletion notice. Keith (talk) 12:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Status update @Rudxain? Mr Pollo (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I thought I'd find new sources "naturally", but so far the only sources I have are the same from Wikipedia (or transitive ("recursive") sources). Is it ok if I copy the sources from WP by citing them in a different way? Rudxain (talk) 08:29, 6 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Ruxdain you can copy them but you have to say you got them from Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's licensing, I'd imagine potentially the "Published via" parameter could be used for cite web?? or you just put where you got it from in your edit summary. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

This doesn't look like a stub to me Rudxain (talk) 05:18, 2 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Removed stubnotice! AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 07:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I've been working on this quiz of scope over time for a while here. I want to get input on how I could make this better as currently it is okay but not completely accurate yet and needs some more checking. Ideally this would be a part of the CRW namespace that helps people understand scope easier, but I'm just not quite there yet. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

I guess it probably needs to assess notability as well as scope, and we need to decide where that line goes for the creation of an article (e.g. for forced arbitration, do we need one secondary source to have talked about the forced arbitration in order for it to be notable enough for its own article and not just a mention on the company page?) Keith (talk) 21:55, 6 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

I guess it would need a mention outside of the company page or it might be considered original research. I was thinking about that when I made this, my first idea was just to have the company page but I switched to thinking that a random Reddit post would confirm that it has been talked about and therefore can be added. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 06:48, 7 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've changed filter 4 to stop it affecting userspace. If there are issues, feel free to revert. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good to me. Thanks for the catch. - Atsumari (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I assume this is on purpose but just in case: The projects namespace has been removed entirely. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

very likely not on purpose, I'll talk to unto Keith (talk) 09:51, 17 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

@AnotherConsumerRightsPerson should be resolved now! Keith (talk) 10:02, 17 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Project Talk pages are still broken with the naming, but work fine otherwise. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

I’m not seeing any issue. Are you still encountering this? - Atsumari (talk) 19:40, 23 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

No, it's fixed now. It seems to have been only temporary. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

In Louis' most recent video on Flock, he linked an article in the description which is incomplete. I think he meant to link Common Questions, Arguments, & Responses when discussing Flock Surveillance instead of Common Questions, which seems to have been created after the video was posted. The title "Common Questions" doesn't even make sense for the content of the article.

Request: move/merge/delete the second article and redirect its name to the first article, or get Louis to change the video description. Bythmusters (talk) 10:39, 29 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

just realized i have permissions to do this so i went ahead and moved the second article and created a redirect, the conflicting article is now here Flock arguments Bythmusters (talk) 10:44, 29 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

I decided to open the DuckDuckGo privacy essentials extension on this site, expecting to see no trackers at all, but I saw Cloudflare load tracking requests. Can we remove this if possible please? AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'll flag down Keith and the tech team so someone can look into this for you. - Atsumari (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

@AnotherConsumerRightsPerson I've checked in with the tech guys on this and these Cloudflare trackers are something we use to monitor site load and usage patterns and stuff, and seem to be alright in terms of privacy (especially since we use Cloudflare for caching and stuff anyway).

https://blog.cloudflare.com/privacy-first-web-analytics/ these are the relevant analytics. Keith (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Okay, good to know! AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

whilst editing some pages I found a few "oversights" with these templates. Template_talk:IndividualPage Template_talk:ProductLinePreload Template_talk:ProductCargo SinexTitan (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Protected ProductLinePreload, marked InduvidualPage as historical, I might need JakeL or Unto to look at ProductCargo as it uses something that I have no clue how to approach and I could very easily make breaking changes. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

can we update Template:IndividualPage? I was editing Mark Zuckerberg yesterday and w/o an infobox it felt like smth was missing SinexTitan (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Individual page is unused I'm pretty sure, so no action needed there AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

BlueDriver OBD2 scanner now requires account login and collects data

References have been updated to be more aligned with the Template:Cite web template. JesseAye (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

 Done. Nice job on archiving by the way. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Awesome, thank you very much! :) JesseAye (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

as the browser extension uses data from the description field could we "rebrand" it? the description of the description field states "Description of x in 150 characters or less" and its name makes it sound like a summary which we already have at the start of every article. instead a field like "info for extension" might be better

edit: smth I missed SinexTitan (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Since you put your thoughts, I'll put mine here as well. It is really bad at accuracy of what you are actually looking at. So for example, if you go to addons.mozilla.org, it will only read the addons bit and there are no articles found about "addons" on the CRW. I think it should query not just that, but also in that title: mozilla, mozilla.org, addons.mozilla, etc. This will significantly increase server load, so maybe just mozilla and mozilla.org, for example, but it will make it more accurate. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Also, can it exclude titles starting with "#REDRECT" as these are redirects, not actual articles, as well as potentially working with other wiki markup as well? AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think the most recent things worked on may not be reflected on the GitHub just yet. the core functioning of the search is very much WIP at the moment- should be done in the next month or so. Keith (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

speaking of search, I'm taking this a bit off topic. but anyway the search on the site itself be improved? yesterday I was looking up an article of mine but only with keywords as I didn't remember the full name of it. searched "Nvidia Intel" but nothing showed up, it only did when I recalled the name of it Nvidia buys stake in Intel. SinexTitan (talk) 10:06, 7 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

That'd probably be painful to do as that is baked into the MediaWiki software. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think there are ways and means of improving it, but it's not something I've looked into in-depth. one thing I do want to get implemented is an extension which lets us (anyone on the wiki) see a page with failed searches, that we can use to create sensible redirects which are a big help for search. I think there are also some search improvement extensions. Keith (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to preface this by saying idk how any of this shit works just me throwing out ideas. anyway could we implement keyword based search? example: searching "Intel" brings up all articles which include Intel in the title. currently articles that only include Intel as the first word in the title show up. SinexTitan (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Artificial_intelligence deserves to have Template:Irrelevant be removed. how does it even have that in the first place? regardless a general AI article is very much required as there are many consumer rights issues that might never get documented. I myself just added the concerns over deepfakes. the work on the article's nowhere to be done. there be loads of CR issues still pending to be mentioned, like: AI takin our gosh darn jobs!, AI hogging up all the fresh water, AI hogging up all the electricity. SinexTitan (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

disregard the examples cuz I blurred the lines between consumer and human rights SinexTitan (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think we should have more discussion on that. Privacy and AI really don't mix and privacy with online ai like chatgpt is horrible, but that only applies to specific AI. I think it should be kept but it can be considered irrelevant because of that. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I see but it still kinda doesn't make sense to me but that doesn't matter. we're actively documenting how AI violates consumer rights with Palantir and Flock Safety. I'm also disregarding my earlier disregardation as we also have documented elements that might be argued is human rights. I get being focused in our mission but being so literal with something such as rights which's quite diverse and convoluted doesn't work SinexTitan (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think the issue is probably more with the contents of the article than the topic itself. we also have this one https://consumerrights.wiki/w/Generative_artificial_intelligence which I think stays a bit more on the 'CRW' side of the line... It's a messy area though and I can see both sides. The current Artificial intelligence article starts off like an intro to AI and then just devolves into an 'AI bad' rant, and I'm not entirely sure it currently brings much more value than a link to Wikipedia's page on AI. Keith (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

this indeed is a very complicated topic. imo most of its probs stem from its supbar start. I'd like to reform it. I have done that kind of work before but for me it always takes a significant amount of time. which mind you were not to the same scale as Artificial intelligence. I can do it but can't promise anything. I am random with my contribs. anyhow, could you guys give me a few pointers on what I should keep in mind? SinexTitan (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Privacy concerns of AI and unethical training is really the only relevant part I see here. Also focus on online AI models, eg. ChatGPT and Gemini (google, ew). I'll have a tiny look at it right now to see if i have other suggestions. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Fixed the only other issue I had with it. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I recently looked through Special:DoubleRedirects and Special:BrokenRedirects and resolved some double redirects. The remaining items seem like something an admin should just delete so the redirect lists are clean. Thanks Bythmusters (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'll delete the ones that can't be saved now and maybe fix some? AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 06:44, 8 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Just converted some articles over, there's still around 70 remaining. While converting these articles, I found some that I could not remove the InfoboxCompany from, because its template was on the same line as a notice template like StubNotice, which I don't have permission to remove. I guess instead of checking that the notice is still there after the edit, the software is checking whether the line with the notice has been edited at all. Kinda annoying, don't know hard it would be to fix, but anyway, here's some articles that I need the InfoboxCompany template removed from:

Asus GoGuardian WhatsApp Stellantis Mazda Bosch Roblox Epic Games Canon CompTIA Intel LG Best Buy

Bythmusters (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

btw there's a lot more of these in the wild,

https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?search=%7B%7BStubNotice%7D%7D%7B%7BInfoboxCompany&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=default&fulltext=1

https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?search=%7B%7BStubNotice%7D%7D%7B%7BInfoboxProductLine&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=default&fulltext=1

In the search results, the ones with a space between the two templates are formatted correctly, while the ones without a space are broken and cannot be edited by regular users until the notice has been removed. And this is just StubNotice + InfoBoxCompany/InfoboxProductLine, there's other notices. Would appreciate if someone with perms could, at minimum, remove the notice and add a blank cargo so anyone viewing Cargo-complete knows it needs to be filled in. Bythmusters (talk) 06:42, 13 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'll try and deal with this now. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Just double checking if you can change ones like the case of CARIAD, where there is a space between them? AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I was able to edit CARIAD. In source view, the StubNotice and InfoboxCompany were not on the same line, and were actually separated by several lines. Bythmusters (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm expanding and adding relevant citations to the Pearson page, marked as one of the articles needing additional work, and seem to keep hitting the spam language filter for the edits all of a sudden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gem (talk • contribs) 20:09, 11 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Gem I've checked the edits and I have looked at what the filter is and I have no idea how your edit got flagged there as all the words you used are allowed according to the filter unless I'm missing something. That filter catches a lot of bad edits so I don't want to turn it off, but that is an issue. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Current status for the Pearson page has it as a stub with Inappropriate Tone/Word Usage. The article has been updated and expanded with impact summary, incidents, company products and references. The tone has been corrected to meet guidelines for neutrality with relevant citations to support the statements.   Gem (talk) 06:14, 14 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

 Done AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 07:15, 14 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Where are the projects (again)? AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 06:45, 18 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Temporarily gone, I think the server got rebooted or updated and the namespace was weird so it dissapeared. no idea what kind of limbo the pages exist in right now... I'll have a word with Unto Keith (talk) 00:48, 20 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Fixed! Keith (talk) 14:52, 20 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Can we make it less annoying or removable? It is bothering me quite a lot. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 16:13, 20 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Don't think we can make it disableable as Javascript is disabled, but I've tried to make it a bit less obtrusive Keith (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm okay with that. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2026 (UTC)Reply