Previous discussion was archived aton 2019-08-07.
Welcome to my talk page.
To leave a message, press the "add topic" button at the top of the page. I will usually respond on this page, rather than on your talk page.
I came here by following the Books with no assigned author link on Toolserver. It randomly assigned me Pizza Kittens (Q7199966) to add missing author information. The book itself passes WD:N, see en:Pizza_Kittens .
While I was in the middle of editing the author’s (Charlotte Voake) properties, the author item got deleted before I’ve had the chance to add sources and link the author to the book.
The entry for Charlotte Voake was one of Q15991307, Q15990747, or Q15990730. (I can’t really tell which of the three it was because you deleted all three at 22:14 UTC as per the deletion log.) Given that the book obviously passes WD:N, how doesn’t the author pass?
Would you mind me retrying this? Or did I do something wrong? If so, what would you suggest as the best course of action for me to signal »please don’t delete, this item is work in progress«? I’m new here and I’m very unfamiliar with editing items. (And I still have somewhat of a hard time figuring out how statements and properties work and what properties to set.)
- Hi @Synoli:, sorry for deleting it too soon! I'm obviously being too efficient with removing new items. Maybe I'll try letting them sit for an hour or so before removing.
- Per WD:N, an item that fills a structural need is allowed. As such, I've restored Q15991307. You did nothing wrong, so sorry for the inconvenience.
- Let me know if you need any help :-) Ajraddatz (talk) 23:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
FYI. Merge requestEdit
Hey FYI, at the time I requested the merge request of Q3832870 - Q16933387 they were both pointing to the same EN Wikipedia article, as you can see here: [].--Notwillywanka (talk) 04:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- There seemed to be a difference to my eyes; one was "line of succession to" and the other was "succession to". Either way, it seems resolved now. Thanks for your work :) Ajraddatz (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- Right, that's what it is now, but originally one was "succession to" the other was "Succession to"! Someone changed it to "line of succession to" shortly after I made the request! Confusing the heck out of me! Have a great day!--Notwillywanka (talk) 08:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Request for deletionEdit
deletion of Q19287564 and Q19287506Edit
While we were talking about it...Edit
- WD:OS lays it out rather vaguely, but oversight is usually saved for very revealing personal information - the IP of a regular contributor which could be easily traced back to him/her, the home address of someone who has not revealed it and might be harassed because of that information getting out, etc. RevDel can be used for more minor cases which still involve quasi-private information or information that could be misused, such as email addresses or nasty attacks against a person. The difference isn't spelled out clearly anywhere, making it usually a judgement call whether or not to oversight. My personal view (largely in keeping with the other oversighters here) is to only hide what is absolutely necessary from admins, though others have different approaches, such as on enwiki where it is routine to oversight the admission of age by a minor.
- That's the difference in a nutshell :-) Ajraddatz (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Deletion of Q18901027Edit
I was previously told that anything on MusicBrainz was notable enough to exist in Wikidata, as MusicBrainz was considered a "serious and publicly available reference" per point 2: "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references. If there is no item about you yet, you are probably not notable." Has this changed? If not, why did you delete Q18901027? —Freso (talk) 10:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- There was a discussion on WD:RFD about that one in which all (three!) participants decided that MusicBrainz was not a source that could determine notability. Maybe start a discussion on it at WD:PC? I will undelete the item if enough people think that it is a useable source. Sorry for the inconvenience. Ajraddatz (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- Done: Wikidata:Project chat#Is MusicBrainz a “serious and publicly available reference”? —Freso (talk) 11:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Aditional option on Reforming administrator inactivity criteria RFCEdit
Csigabi and his gang againEdit
It was your wise decision which I myself accepted but Csigabi and his gang ignored: "Closed - @Csigabi: any further use of your sysop tools while involved will result in a desysop thread being made. Any further edit warring or personally attacks from any of the involved users will result in a block to prevent this ridiculous behaviour. @Borgatya: I respect your education, sir, but that does not give you leave to insult other users here, nor does it mean that you "own" items or that your opinion is any more valid than anyone else's. Thanks for agreeing to abide by the manual of style; obviously not every page conforms to it, but we should be working towards ensuring that they do rather than throwing it out the window. Ajraddatz" See: Anna of Cilli: "anyai unoka" means maternal grandchild.Borgatya (talk) 12:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I would like to point out that there was no sysop action in this case, even though the page should have been protected. User:Borgatya tries to push his own nonsense version of "somebody's grandchild". There is no such expression in Hungarian as anyai unoka (literally maternal grandchild). In this case it would be even wrong in English (see maternal grandchild in Wiktionary) where the meaning is clearly the child of a woman's daughter: a grandchild to whom one is the maternal grandmother. There is no doubt that King Casimir was not a woman.
Arkanoid Web DesignsEdit
Hi Adrian, just logged into my Wikki data account to see that you have deleted page Q19960323, says content was: Web Design, SEO, Licensing Consultancy" (and the only contributor was "Arkanoid Web Designs")), Can you outline what I've done wrong here, and what I must do to re create this page?
Mountain elevations taken from ceb.wikiEdit
Hi Ajraddatz, I noticed there is a general problem with lots of mountain articles on wikidata: the elevations taken from the articles on ceb.wiki are totally wrong.
You can see for instance here that ceb.wiki reports in its infobox 2 elavations for the mountain (1,918 and 2,564 m). The correct one is the latter (as stated on it.wiki, here), but the robot that uploaded the elevations from ceb.wiki took the first one (1,918 m).
Do you think is possible to do something to solve this? I erased some wrong elevations from the articles of the mountain of W Alps that I know, but I guess the problem is quite whidespread.
I.e. I wonder if is possible to make a bot that erases all the mountain elevations taken from ceb.wiki on wikidata, or that changes the wrong value with the good one (the second of the ceb.wiki infobox). --22.214.171.124 09:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)