Help desk | ||
---|---|---|
< November 6 | << Oct | November | Dec >> | November 8 > |
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. |
I want to use RSS to monitor several Wikipedia pages for changes. I know that I can get an RSS feed for any particular page's changes, but if possible I would prefer to get the changes for multiple pages at once (less work on my end, and also I'd be hitting Wikipedia's server less often). It occurred to me that the watchlist might support this, and I found that it does. However, my watchlist (intentionally) has a lot of entries, all of which I want to retain, but I do not want to get RSS notifications for all of them. So, I thought perhaps I could set up a second watchlist, but apparently this is not possible. The page saying so does give a workaround, though: It suggests setting up a subpage on your user page listing the pages you want to monitor, and periodically checking that page's "Related changes" link; voila, (something like) a second watchlist.
I would like to avoid that route, though, for a couple reasons: First, while a real watchlist is private, the subpage workaround is public. Second, it's not clear to me that you actually can get an RSS feed via this method. So, I thought maybe instead I could just create a second account, and use its watchlist as the one I want to monitor via RSS. Obviously I can do this, in a technical sense, but I wanted to make sure it wouldn't be violating any policy. So, I looked up policies about having multiple accounts. Unfortunately, while I don't see anything clearly indicating that this intended usage of mine is against policy, I also do not see anything clearly indicating that it is not against policy. So there's my first question: Is this a legitimate use of a second account or not?
I also thought that (assuming my plan described above would be considered to be a legitimate use of a second account) I might have to jump through some hoops for having a bot account. I discovered that (at least generally speaking) you do need to do that in order to legitimately use a bot account. However, I also noticed that everything I've seen regarding bot accounts has explicitly defined them as automated processes that edit pages. I have no intention of using the second account to edit anything (with the exception of its watchlist, which I would edit manually, not automatically). So, there's my second question: Am I correct in thinking that this second account would not be considered to be a "bot", for the purposes of the hoops that bot accounts need to jump through?
Thanks in advance. Rwv37 (talk) 06:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
An editor might use an alternative account to carry out maintenance taskswhich seems pretty close to what you want to do. The key, it seems to me, is to use the template ((User alternative account)) to clearly mark the multiple accounts as being linked and, of course, never using the combination for the bad stuff listed at WP:SOCK. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:40, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Good morning
I've been trying to edit an article, but my edits are being removed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_images_in_the_Soviet_Union
There is a lot of extraneous information that doesn't belong here. For example, under 'Censorship of Historical Photographs, the entire first section first section, 'The Water Commissar' makes no mention of the editing of any photographs. It simply provides a summary of information that can be found in the main article about the person in question.
Under the next section, 'Lenin's Speech', which does indeed talk about how Trotsky and others were removed from photographs, there is a further extraneous section, which has nothing to do with the editing of photographs but merely summarises information that can be found by following the link to the article about Trotsky. The whole point of having links to other articles is to prevent duplication of information that does not deal with the matter in hand.
As I say, I have tried to remove the unnecessary paragraphs, but the edits have been reversed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferrabosco (talk • contribs) 09:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
There are three IPs in a Nazi history-related talk page that are being open antisemites ([1]). I am not aware of what the policies are on removing harassment and banning the people involved (one of them have already been blocked). How does one report users and IPs for harassment and discrimination? Can hate speech and other discriminatory language be removed at-will, or are they allowed to gunk up talk pages? This isn't the first time I've seen such unhelpful language similar to this, and would like to know how to handle future cases. Thanks! Mewnst (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The automatic citation generation tool, where one can input an identifier or url to get a citation, works really nicely, and is a great improvement over manual editing or even importing from Zotero. But I can only find it as a toolbar button in the visual editor. So when editing, I switch back and forth between the source editor and the visual one, just for this purpose. Am I missing something? Is there no way to load the tool from the source editor? trespassers william (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I want to join cells for writers in episodes that follow each other so I can make it easier to read. There's also a conflict with this template and the info box which make the episode box way lower than it needs to be. Can anyone help me? Shexantidote (talk) 19:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
All the biographical information removed by editor was derived from “Local Man to Speak in Oxford” by Melanie Smith, published in “The Decatur Daily,” January 1, 1983, pp. 5 & 6. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JP1701 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)