Topic on User talk:Bovlb

Hi Bobvl,

IMHO we shall not accept Biyografya ID as source for notability, since it is crowdsourced.

Fatih Yiğit Demirci (Q113867492) for example is a total joke. He is a fucking student! There is no proof that his Instagram usage as a youngster ("e-commerce brands") have earned him any money.

Fatih Yiğit Demirci continues his higher education life at Hacettepe University. The young businessman, who started his entrepreneurial life with the e-commerce brands he founded, later brought the continuation of his successful initiatives and started the advertising agency. Currently, he successfully continues his studies on digital marketing and e-commerce.

Added Wikidata property for an identifier that does not imply notability to the identifier

OK. Are you proposing that my tool treat Wikidata property for an identifier that does not imply notability (Q62589320) in the same way it treats Wikidata property to identify online accounts (Q105388954)?

That would be a good idea. Tho, in my experience Q62589320 tends to be overused by Wikipedians with more exclusionist views

My recommendation would be for the tool to treat Q62589320 identifiers that are used in spam items the same way as Wikidata property to identify online accounts (Q105388954)

It may be overused, but I want my tool's orange/green spread to reflect the spread of the community's opinions on the matter.

'Any claim (regardless of rank) has a reference that is not weak (inferred or Wikipedia import - Q113558322)'

My recommendation would be to add retrieved (P813), point in time (P585) and Fandom article ID (P6262) to the list of weak references

I'm not sure that makes sense. I don't think, for example, we should treat a reference as weak just because it has a retrieved (P813); that seems a perfectly reasonable thing to add to a strong reference. I don't know why a reference would have point in time (P585). I can see Fandom article ID (P6262), but it seems too specific; I'd rather add a category of properties.

I'm saying we should treat references which only includes Fandom article ID (P6262) and nothing else as weak.

'I don't know why a reference would have' It's common thing with items by completely new users

OK. The current test doesn't do "only includes X and nothing else", it just does "includes X". We certainly could do something like that, although negative conditions are always awkward in SPARQL. I'd agree that references that include only an identifier do tend to be weak. If we already have the identifier, that gives the item N2a. If the identifier is not one that implies notability, then it's hard to argue that a reference using it suddenly confers N2b notability as well.

You're probably right that P585 is commonly misused by new users, but I'd rather keep this tool as a clear semantic test, and avoid trying to recognise patterns of new-user error.

I meant retrieved (P813), not Fandom article ID (P6262)

What tool are you hinting at here?

User:Bovlb/notability.js - I announced it at Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2022/08#Notability_gadget

Thanks.

Do you have your own tool to check item creations by new users? Is it somewhere at Github/Gitlab?

I mostly use Recent Changes to find new user page creations. I don't do notability deletions, mostly just empty items and recreated items. I have built my own search engine for deleted content, and I'm working to make it more widely available, but current policy is going to limit it to administrators.

The user's name and surname contain insults to the President of Turkey. Do you take what this man says seriously? What type of admin group are you?

take back what you deleted bro, if you want to do your job well, are you insulting the president of the country by taking this man for granted?

Wikidata has no local username policy.

Everyone deserves to be taken seriously and reasonable questions deserve an answer. Wikidata is a very open community. We share our tools whenever possible. We need all the help we can get fighting the waves of spammers that are trying to abuse the project.

I will seriously report you to very strong places.

Did you take seriously the person who wrote to insult my country's president under the name of blasphemy? and you didn't even reply to my last messages. Why couldn't you give? I think you are not an admin, now I am complaining about you and you will see what an ambitious man I am.