User talk:IagoQnsi

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 30 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Children's Mercy Park logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:13, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:NCAA football icon logo.svg, 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.

This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page's history for further information. DatBot (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cleburne Railroaders logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:11, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Transfermarkt is not considered a reliable source, because much of its content is user-edited. This makes it a self-published source. Per WP:SPS, Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people. (Emphasis original). Thank you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Transfermarkt is not a reliable source. The issue I had was with removing the citation while leaving the claims that were sourced from Transfermarkt. If the source is so completely untrustworthy, then we shouldn't just remove the citation; we should remove all sentences attributed to that source as well. Alternatively, the source is fairly untrustworthy, but we don't think the sentences need to be removed immediately, then we should keep the citation (so we know where the claims came from) and put a problem tag on it, so that the problem is clearly marked and hopefully a better source can be found. I'm fine with either of those two options; I would prefer the second one, but if you favor deleting everything I would be okay with that. The one course of action that I think we definitely should NOT take is to remove the citation but keep the sentence. Now we just have a sentence that came from an untrustworthy source, but is not marked in any way. A reader might think that the footnote was merely lost, rather than that the info came from a known bad source. Please let me know your thoughts. Much appreciated, IagoQnsi (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] The comment above about not citing self-published sources in BLP's is a quote from the verifiability policy. You're casually implying that it's okay to ignore a core policy. You don't need my permission to remove the content, if you that's appropriate. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I'm not saying that the source shouldn't be ultimately removed or that we should ignore verifiability; I'm merely disagreeing about what the process should be when removing unreliable sources. The stats in that sentence were taken from Transfermarkt, so the Transfermarkt citation should not be removed unless that sentence is also going to be removed. This is why I added Template:Better source needed; my intention was that the citation would eventually be eliminated one way or another. The main point I'm trying to make is that citations should not be removed without considering the content they're attached to. The best thing to do when you find a sentence with a bad source is to find a better source and replace the citation. But of course that takes time, so if you're trying to make a quick improvement, the next best thing to do is either to tag the source as bad, or to remove both the sentence and the citation. If you remove the citation without removing the sentence, you are not eliminating the use of unreliable sources; you are merely eliminating the evidence that an unreliable source was used, which I would argue is more harmful. –IagoQnsi (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]