Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2024 January 5

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 5

User deletion of warns

If a user deletes a warn they were given from their talk page (whether the warn was valid or invalid), what would be the course of action to take? Fanfanboy (talk) 02:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Nothing. It is their user page: the point was to warn them, and they've presumably seen it. Others can also still see it in the history pretty trivially, so chronic issues usually won't be overlooked. Remsense留 02:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Fanfanboy: Warnings may be removed. There are a few things that can't be deleted from the user talk page, such as declined unblock requests. See WP:REMOVE RudolfRed (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Fanfanboy, removal of a user talk page warning is construed as evidence that the editor read and understood the warning. The removal provides no protection at all to that editor. They are still expected to comply with reasonable, accurate, policy-based warnings. Cullen328 (talk) 03:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

When to go to RSN

Is it appropriate to open an RSN discussion to assess the reliability of sources currently being cited in an AfD discussion? And should I ping the people involved in the AfD discussion? Or should the reliability of the sources be discussed at the AfD and an RSN discussion can be opened at a later date if necessary? TipsyElephant (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Without knowing the specifics, I would say discuss at the AFD, and if you are not satisfied, then go to RSN for wider input. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft

I'm currently working on a draft here: Kingdom of Menabe. I've tried searching for sources but haven't been successful. Could you direct me to some reliable sources that have anything related to Madagascar history? ''Flux55'' (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Flux55: Hello! It appears that you are trying to write the article backwards, i.e. first you came up with the subject, created a draft, and then started thinking about the sources. In short, you should have first found enough sources and then created draft, etc. I mean it's not a wrong approach to write an article backwards but it's way harder than doing it forwards: experienced editors would say at least 20 times as hard (from the text I linked). Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 21:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Art Venegas

I recently submitted an entry about track and field coach, Art Venegas. I tried to submit the entry earlier, but I botched it. My question is, can someone verify that my Venegas entry has successfully been submitted? Eric-Dieter Eric-Dieter (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Eric-Dieter, you appear to have written a draft on your user page, User:Eric-Dieter.

1) It has not been submitted for review. It would likely be declined if you did submit it, since the formatting of your references is essentially broken, and there are some serious issues with tone.

2) Your user page is place for information about yourself as a Wikipedia editor, not a place to draft articles. Ideally you should be working at Draft:Art Venegas, or at least in your sandbox, where you've already created a sample page - User:Eric-Dieter/Sample page.

Have you reviewed Help:Referencing for beginners and/or Help:Your first article? 57.140.16.1 (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Note: @Eric-Dieter: I have moved your draft to Draft:Art Venegas. Note that "publish changes" or "publish page" should be understood as "save changes" and "save page" respectively, it does not publish straight to the encyclopedia. The reason why they're labeled this way is because every page on Wikipedia is publicitely viewable, if one knows where to look. Victor Schmidt (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I've made some tweaks to improve readability and bring the draft further in line with our style guidelines. Beside the problems I mentioned above, I see information which is not tied to any reference, particularly in the personal life section, plus many formatting problems. @Eric-Dieter, I recommend you try using the Visual Editor here on Wikipedia to get the draft looking the way you've envisioned, and that you remove any family details in the draft which you do not have a reliable source for. 57.140.16.1 (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Images license

I would like to upload some images from the https://fkzeljeznicar.ba/ website, both past and future ones, on to Wikimedia Commons. Not too long ago, I emailed the club's PR team and asked them if it was okay with them to freely use the images. They responded and said that it was totaly fine. However, when I approached the Help desk, all of the moderators here told me that a written permission was not enough and that the owners (in this case the PR team) had to have a license published on the website saying all the images are free to redistribute. Recently, I thought of reaching out to them again and asking if they would like to do that in order for the images to be freely used. Now I am just wondering, is it enough for the license to be placed, for example, at the bottom of the website, and if so, what specific license would be the best to put up which would guarantee for the images to be 100% free to used and to upload on to Wikimedia Commons? Thank you for all your answers in advance :) Bakir123 (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Bakir123, I think the best choice of licence for Commons would be probably be CC BY-SA 4.0. But they should be aware that once they publish their images that way, anyone is allowed to reuse them, not just Commons or Wikipedia, and they won't be able to go back on it. Rummskartoffel 22:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Bakir123: You can also suggest that they read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials and donate a set of photographs themselves. GoingBatty (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

See User contributions for... in more summary form

In my watchlist, I have multiple changes (in a day) wrapped into a single line in the list. e.g.:
16:39 Scotland‎‎ (14 changes | history)...
This makes the list much more compact and usable.
Is there something comparable for my User contributions? Exactly the same functionality would not really work, but wrapping up all the edits for, say, the last month in a single line would be useful. Then I could go back and look for editing that, in the light of further reading, now seems incomplete – or anything that needs further review after any initial burst of enthusiasm. (Yes, I have rewritten or even deleted some of my editing in the cold light of dawn!) If that [suggested] month were easily variable, that would be even better.

Or to put things another way, how can I remind myself of what I have been doing on Wikipedia in the recent past, so that I can check for anything that I have done that needs a bit more work?

The current question comes from doing some reading of a lengthy (5 volumes, approx. 9 inches of shelf space) and complex source that has relevance to a number of articles. Finding a balance between keeping reading and doing appropriate editing is a challenge – especially as the source has information somewhat dotted about and no adequate index. So having a good review of my editing would really help. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

If you just want a list of articles you recently edited, XTools might do the job: [1]. Rummskartoffel 23:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@ThoughtIdRetired: I can't answer your question (sorry), but what do you use to get your watchlist to wrap up multiple changes in that way? Bazza (talk) 10:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Make sure the "Latest revision" filter is turned off, click the cogwheel on the right side and check "Group results by page". Rummskartoffel 12:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Rummskartoffel: Thanks! Bazza (talk) 13:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)