Averater
Welcome to Wikidata, Averater!
Wikidata is a free knowledge base that you can edit! It can be read and edited by humans and machines alike and you can go to any item page now and add to this ever-growing database!
Need some help getting started? Here are some pages you can familiarize yourself with:
- Introduction – An introduction to the project.
- Wikidata tours – Interactive tutorials to show you how Wikidata works.
- Community portal – The portal for community members.
- User options – including the 'Babel' extension, to set your language preferences.
- Contents – The main help page for editing and using the site.
- Project chat – Discussions about the project.
- Tools – A collection of user-developed tools to allow for easier completion of some tasks.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask on Project chat. If you want to try out editing, you can use the sandbox to try. Once again, welcome, and I hope you quickly feel comfortable here, and become an active editor for Wikidata.
Best regards!
Please do not create incomplete items. This one is missing rank and parent taxon. --Succu (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- I'll try. But still this was an improvement compared to before when one item was about two different taxons. --Averater (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- Changing the meaning of an item is a very bad idea. Please don't do this again. --Succu (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- But having one item for two different taxonomic names is a mess. Now there is some serious wierdness. --Averater (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- Nope there isn't. I splitted the item into Pseudaletis spolia (Q7254169) and Pseudaletis antimachus (Q22158171). --Succu (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- Where one is a redirect and one has some information removed... And the one with some information left about two different names. Which maybe about the same taxa according to some but with no option of adding synonyms. --Averater (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- enwiki states that someone (WHO?) thinks Pseudaletis antimachus (Q22158171) is a synonym of Pseudaletis spolia (Q7254169) without giving a reference. Any idea about this unkown WHO? --Succu (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- Unfortunately not. --Averater (talk) 06:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- enwiki states that someone (WHO?) thinks Pseudaletis antimachus (Q22158171) is a synonym of Pseudaletis spolia (Q7254169) without giving a reference. Any idea about this unkown WHO? --Succu (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I removed this claim. The source did not treat Primula cespitosa (Q22082805) as a synonym of Dionysia aretioides (Q15339238). --Succu (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- Imagine how helpful it would be if everyone added sources. --Averater (talk) 14:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- Feel free to add some. You have not the slightest idea what I'm doing there. Sometimes sources have to wait until some things are sorted out. --Succu (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- I'm sorry. That was an unnecessary comment. --Averater (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed. But adding flawed sources like this is not helpfull. And this is only another example of your „sourcings“. --Succu (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- I would appreciate if you said what was flawed instead of just saying "this is bad". --Averater (talk) 06:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- The diff is the answer. You omitted the edition and the volume. --Succu (talk) 10:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- I would appreciate if you said what was flawed instead of just saying "this is bad". --Averater (talk) 06:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed. But adding flawed sources like this is not helpfull. And this is only another example of your „sourcings“. --Succu (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- I'm sorry. That was an unnecessary comment. --Averater (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- Feel free to add some. You have not the slightest idea what I'm doing there. Sometimes sources have to wait until some things are sorted out. --Succu (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Next time... edit
... accusing users „of the insults and arrogant comments“ it would be nice to get them noticed about that at their user talk pages. Another pleasantry I would await are difflinks to support your POV. But maybe the rule on svwiki are different... --Succu (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- I did link your names so I did assume that you got some ping. And I did also link to the discussions so users can read for themselves. --Averater (talk) 18:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe you did not know the term „difflink“. Then please have a look at Help:Diff (Q9037428). Your strong accusations are needing some of these. --Succu (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Everyone do know how to and can easily find the post. --Averater (talk) 06:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Warning edit
- User:Brya (182k edits) and User:Succu (27,997k bot edits and 2,215k edits) take care of the logic of the tree of life. Do not harass User:Brya and User Succu, I DO NOT like it. It is forbidden to revert more than twice. I have the feeling that Wikipedia has a problem with paid harrassment and I DO NOT like it. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- To question their edits and request discussion of a rather large addition to how Wikidata should be managed is not an harassment. I do not know if any of them are paid for their edits but both of them are anonymous and have a lot of questionable edits as well and have harassed several other users. Search WD:AN and you'll find a few occasions. --Averater (talk) 10:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)