User talk:Tol

This is Tol's talk page, where you can communicate with her.

Archives (search):

2020: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2021: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2022: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2023: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2024: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2025: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2026: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Question from WaterCreature (17:18, 14 January 2026)

Note: WaterCreature's mentor Rafaelthegreat is away.

Hey there. I want to improve my user page; how do I make userboxes? --WaterCreature (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@WaterCreature: Template:Userbox can be used to create your own userboxes. If you would like to add existing userboxes made by other users, you can find them in the userbox galleries. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 23:30, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Ptokmak2 (14:05, 15 January 2026)

Note: Ptokmak2's mentor Matrix is away.

Hello Matrix. Hope the new year is treating you well. A month or so ago, I tried to add an image to the Diebenkorn article and thought I had followed protocol for getting a “fair use” exception for using a copy written image. However, I received an objection note from someone that indicated the exact piece of artwork was not mentioned in the article, so permission wasn’t allowed. I responded back that the artwork WAS an example of a body of work RD did and so it should be allowed (the same stipulation applies to the other artworks already part of the article). Do you have any tips or advice about getting images placed in articles using “fair use” reasoning? Thanks so much. Paul --Ptokmak2 (talk) 14:05, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Ptokmak2; your message was sent to me instead, as your own mentor is away. It looks like you're referring to your files for upload request for Richard Diebenkorn. The general implementation of the non-free content criterion 8 (contextual significance) is provided in the non-free content guideline; for artwork, my own understanding is that — while it could be argued that inclusion of this piece would provide significantly better understanding of Diebenkorn's style in this period — it would likely be preferable to have some discussion in the body (say, a sentence or two) about this piece in particular (and how it represents his style in this period). (It would also be preferable for the image being added to be a discussed by sources as a particularly representative or strong example of this style.) For instance, the image of Ocean Park No. 67 is provided to add context to the extensive discussion of the Ocean Park series in the body. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 23:45, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Ptokmak2 (14:12, 15 January 2026)

Note: Ptokmak2's mentor Matrix is away.

Also, the Biography section of the Diebenkorn article is very lengthy. I’m wondering if it would benefit from being divided into subsections. Is there a protocol for doing this? Is there a “style” that Wikipedia prefers for something like this? Thanks again for your advice. --Ptokmak2 (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Ptokmak2: I agree that it would probably be useful to divide Richard Diebenkorn § Biography into subsections due to its length. I'm not aware of a standard practice for doing so, as the appropriate divisions would vary by the individual biography, but would recommend dividing it naturally by life and artistic periods (e.g. "Early life", "Early abstract expressionist works", "Bay Area Figurative Movement", "Santa Monica and Ocean Park series", &c.), potentially with time periods in years explicitly listed in the section titles. I'm not familiar with Diebenkorn, so I'm not sure if this particular division would be most appropriate; I'm just providing it as an example based on a quick reading of the section. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 23:58, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Ptokmak2 (17:24, 15 January 2026)

Note: Ptokmak2's mentor Matrix is away.

How does one take issue with an edit that was performed? Thank you. 🙂 --Ptokmak2 (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Ptokmak2: There's not exactly one correct way to do this, but I would generally recommend starting a discussion on the article's talk page. (When starting the discussion topic, I would also recommend notifying ("pinging") the user who made the edit.) If you think the edit is clearly (and relatively uncontroversially) unconstructive, you can also just revert (undo) it; just be careful to avoid repeatedly reverting back and forth in place of discussion, as this is considered edit warring. One popular essay on handling disagreements over edits is the "bold, revert, discuss" (BRD) cycle. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 00:05, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tol for all of your helpful advice and information! Ptokmak2 (talk) 16:29, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 07:42, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Natebliggers (05:15, 23 January 2026)

Is it acceptable to cite the criticism of youtubers or other online figures in the reception section of articles concerning video games? --Natebliggers (talk) 05:15, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Natebliggers: In general, probably not; these would likely be self-published sources. However, there may be instances where this is appropriate, depending on context — see the reliable sources guideline. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:00, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Koulou'mOurti (08:35, 23 January 2026)

Hello @Tol, I have a question about conflicting citations. I'm writing an article about a massacre, and different articles cite different numbers of dead. One of the articles is by a lesser-known publication but has all the names of the victims, while the major ones are short by two. How do I address this issue? --Koulou'mOurti (talk) 08:35, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Koulou'mOurti: This would be addressed by the neutral point of view policy section on due and undue weight. The majority viewpoint should be presented most prominently, with significant minority viewpoints also noted; if there is no clear consensus in this case, that that should itself be stated, with significant viewpoints provided and attributed to their supporters. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:04, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Jlvshistory (14:24, 26 January 2026)

Hey, I recieved a notification from Wikipedia Library a few days ago it says they sent me a message, I accidentally deleted and I don't know how to find it again and where --Jlvshistory (talk) 14:24, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]