Kai3952
Welcome to Wikidata, Kai3952!
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! Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
You should check en:WP:SOCK to find out what is sockpupptery, and in particular it is offensive to accuse other people of sockpuppetry without having any evidence (see en:WP:NOASSUMESOCK). Also, sockpuppetry or not, wiki shouldn't be a place for petty business like "do not really care whether your edits are good or bad". Thanks for understanding. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:7093:B81:F6C7:9E3 10:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- You action now is to admit that 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:B168:D910:2F1F:F5B6 and 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:7093:B81:F6C7:9E3 are sock puppet accounts. In summary, your response here is the best evidence of your sockpupptery.-Kai3952 (talk) 10:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- This only shows that I have a dynamic IP address. While sockpuppetry is about misuse of multiple accounts that you probably have no evidence of, let alone no evidence of misusing one account. ;) 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:7093:B81:F6C7:9E3 10:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- That's not important. What is important is, have you thought about this problem – if you continue to insist on using "dynamic IP address", how much bother will you cause for us? I strongly encourage you to register for an account to become a regular editor.--Kai3952 (talk) 12:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- I only pointed out what's pretty obvious based on your IP address comparison. Other than that I understand that there are limits to anonymous editing. Nonetheless this has worked for me and generally I've been able to communicate with other users just fine. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:696D:903A:ACFE:71CC 13:08, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- What you said makes me feel that you seem to avoid something. Because you actually know that you can edit any page, not just communicate with other users. So far you have used 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:B168:D910:2F1F:F5B6, 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:7093:B81:F6C7:9E3 and 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:696D:903A:ACFE:71CC for editing wikidata. We know that these three different IP addresses are the same person. However, the real problem is that you do not specifically use the one account, so we cannot know whether all your edits are in good faith, let alone that you will abide by the rules and fully disclose that you have no other accounts on Wikidata.--Kai3952 (talk) 15:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- To me it seems that the real problem remains unclear. You haven't provided an evidence on some controversial conduct by me or by someone else that you suspect to be me. The same way you can suspect any logged in user of something sinister. Surely anonymous users do edits that are not in good faith, but so do logged in users (e.g. the very same revert referenced above). Anonymous editing is permitting and I think you shouldn't exercise bad faith without being given an actual reason to do so. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:696D:903A:ACFE:71CC 16:32, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- The evidence is yourself. If you think I shouldn't excerise bad faith without being given an actual reason to do so, I strongly suggest you to register for an account to become a regular editor. This is the only way to prove that you are not a sock puppet. When you start using the one registered account and become a regular editor, no one cares you used to be a dynamic IP address or a sock puppet.--Kai3952 (talk) 18:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think that I have to prove anything. You made unsubstantiated claims, not me. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:917:DE7A:5635:5149 18:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- The evidence is yourself. If you think I shouldn't excerise bad faith without being given an actual reason to do so, I strongly suggest you to register for an account to become a regular editor. This is the only way to prove that you are not a sock puppet. When you start using the one registered account and become a regular editor, no one cares you used to be a dynamic IP address or a sock puppet.--Kai3952 (talk) 18:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- By the way, I checked your recent edits to see if you reverted more of my edits per this "don't care whether edits are good or bad" princple of yours, and I happen to notice that you create a lot of items for Commons categories. For your information, the latter likely don't meet WD:N (point 1.4 in particular). 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:696D:903A:ACFE:71CC 17:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I really truly create a lot of items for Commons categories. I am not very familiar with Wikidata; on the contrary, I am very familiar with Commons. I came here because of his request.--Kai3952 (talk) 18:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, I rely on Google Translate and I don't understand what exactly is this request about.
- Well, one thing are items like Dongpu Mountain (Q102105047) that probably meet notability criteria as "clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity" (point 2). Another thing are items like Category:Neogene geology of Taiwan (Q102115605) that combine topics as a Wikimedia category and have only Commons sitelink. Items for the latter probably shouldn't be created and would probably be deleted without much hesitation if nominated. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:F5B8:7B87:6041:4FF9 18:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- I don't care what you say here. Because you have consistently behaved in a way that you can not be trusted. Not only do you strongly insist on using your way, but not admit to the fact there are multiple accounts such as "2001:7D0:81F7:B580:917:DE7A:5635:5149" or "2001:7D0:81F7:B580:F5B8:7B87:6041:4FF9". No one wants to see someone using the multiple accounts to get his personal goals satisfied(such as to vandalize pages, harassing users, circumventing a block, etc). In summary, if you don't register for an account to become a regular editor, nor don't choose to use only one account in all the sock puppet accounts, you are wasting your time and also wasting my time. Why should I be deliberately harassed by someone like you and no one can stop you from creating sock puppet accounts?! How the hell is this fair to regular editor who follow the rules? However, I also know that it is not entirely your problem. I just want to complain something, because this problem accumulated over the years has not been taken seriously by the Wikimedia Foundation. Blocking accounts can't solve the sockpuppetry problem at all. I not only hard to contribute hard to improve my familiarity with Wikidata but I also had to face the fact that on Wikidata anyone can use multiple accounts to circumvent blocks.--Kai3952 (talk) 08:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- I hoped we are past this now that there's also a comment from another user below. The only harrassing and closest to breaking some actual rule here I can see are your false accusations. My last comment was only an attempt to help you out with items that likely will be deleted sooner or later. But whatever then. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:11A6:3450:F8D9:A534 09:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- What?! Obviously you want to quarrel with me. I have had enough of you and your actions in the past days. I never asked you to help me. Because it is the fact that you came to me first, and keep harrasing me at my talkpage. I believe I explained it clearly what problem will be caused by using multiple accounts to circumvent blocks. However, you not only used multiple accounts to harass me, but also keep coming to me and false accused me of harassing you. If you are truly discussing it with a very important for me such as items that likely will be deleted, you should go to User talk:迴廊彼端 and discuss your objections to his request. So, I can see that you are making an excuse for everything that you do. I can't stop you from coming to me, because you are using multiple accounts and blocking accounts can't stop you harrasing me. As for you being offended by special:diff/1305925231, I reverted your edit just for anti-vandalism. It is important to keep items that likely will be deleted but what is more important to me is...hope you go to User talk:迴廊彼端 and don't come to me.--Kai3952 (talk) 11:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- I hoped we are past this now that there's also a comment from another user below. The only harrassing and closest to breaking some actual rule here I can see are your false accusations. My last comment was only an attempt to help you out with items that likely will be deleted sooner or later. But whatever then. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:11A6:3450:F8D9:A534 09:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- I don't care what you say here. Because you have consistently behaved in a way that you can not be trusted. Not only do you strongly insist on using your way, but not admit to the fact there are multiple accounts such as "2001:7D0:81F7:B580:917:DE7A:5635:5149" or "2001:7D0:81F7:B580:F5B8:7B87:6041:4FF9". No one wants to see someone using the multiple accounts to get his personal goals satisfied(such as to vandalize pages, harassing users, circumventing a block, etc). In summary, if you don't register for an account to become a regular editor, nor don't choose to use only one account in all the sock puppet accounts, you are wasting your time and also wasting my time. Why should I be deliberately harassed by someone like you and no one can stop you from creating sock puppet accounts?! How the hell is this fair to regular editor who follow the rules? However, I also know that it is not entirely your problem. I just want to complain something, because this problem accumulated over the years has not been taken seriously by the Wikimedia Foundation. Blocking accounts can't solve the sockpuppetry problem at all. I not only hard to contribute hard to improve my familiarity with Wikidata but I also had to face the fact that on Wikidata anyone can use multiple accounts to circumvent blocks.--Kai3952 (talk) 08:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I really truly create a lot of items for Commons categories. I am not very familiar with Wikidata; on the contrary, I am very familiar with Commons. I came here because of his request.--Kai3952 (talk) 18:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- To me it seems that the real problem remains unclear. You haven't provided an evidence on some controversial conduct by me or by someone else that you suspect to be me. The same way you can suspect any logged in user of something sinister. Surely anonymous users do edits that are not in good faith, but so do logged in users (e.g. the very same revert referenced above). Anonymous editing is permitting and I think you shouldn't exercise bad faith without being given an actual reason to do so. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:696D:903A:ACFE:71CC 16:32, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- What you said makes me feel that you seem to avoid something. Because you actually know that you can edit any page, not just communicate with other users. So far you have used 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:B168:D910:2F1F:F5B6, 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:7093:B81:F6C7:9E3 and 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:696D:903A:ACFE:71CC for editing wikidata. We know that these three different IP addresses are the same person. However, the real problem is that you do not specifically use the one account, so we cannot know whether all your edits are in good faith, let alone that you will abide by the rules and fully disclose that you have no other accounts on Wikidata.--Kai3952 (talk) 15:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- I only pointed out what's pretty obvious based on your IP address comparison. Other than that I understand that there are limits to anonymous editing. Nonetheless this has worked for me and generally I've been able to communicate with other users just fine. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:696D:903A:ACFE:71CC 13:08, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- That's not important. What is important is, have you thought about this problem – if you continue to insist on using "dynamic IP address", how much bother will you cause for us? I strongly encourage you to register for an account to become a regular editor.--Kai3952 (talk) 12:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- This only shows that I have a dynamic IP address. While sockpuppetry is about misuse of multiple accounts that you probably have no evidence of, let alone no evidence of misusing one account. ;) 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:7093:B81:F6C7:9E3 10:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, I just came across this discussion.
- Anonymous user: Your edits appear to be good. Thanks for making them! Of course you can edit with changing or dynamic IP addresses, while I'd like to encourage you to create an account if you are editing regularly this is definitely not required in any way.
- Kai3952: Thanks for your contributions but please don't revert good edits but anonymous users, if you believe someone is a sockpuppet of another user or behaves badly open a topic at WD:AN and let the administrators handle the case.
- Best, --Pyfisch (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Per request at Special:Diff/1309445120 by User:Kai3952 on Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard, I quickly read through this discussion. The only recommendation I can give both of you is to end it here and now.
The IP user 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:0:0:0:0/64 does not do anything which is forbidden, they just happen to have an IPv6 address where the last 64 bits change often (which is pretty normal in fact). While I would prefer them to register an account as well, there is nothing we can do as unregistered editing is perfectly fine here. I also mention that I have patrolled quite a lot of contributions by the IP user in the past days and weeks, and I find their editing—more than 3000 revisions from 86 different IP addresses starting with 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:… within the past 30 days—to be a clear net-positive contribution to this project. —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
台灣物件zh標籤用簡體字不適宜 edit
你好，台灣這邊的物件，如學校或分類，中文應該是用繁體中文，不宜用簡體字。請善用zh-hans、zh-cn標籤。我這邊會把你的變動改回來，希望你能自行加zh-hans、zh-cn。Supaplex (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)