User talk:IceWelder/Archive
Latest comment: 1 year ago by IceWelder in topic Q23648408
Welcome to Wikidata, Lordtobi!
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) 13:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Reminder edit
Hi Lordtobi,
Please do not delete historic information from Wikidata as you did, e.g. at https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q2020713&diff=prev&oldid=1037899361
If an information is no longer current, you can add an end date. --- Jura 09:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- Please undo your deletion. If there is a problem with an infobox on enwiki, you need to fix this at English Wikipedia.
- If you keep deleting valid content from Wikidata, I will ask you to be blocked. --- Jura 10:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Jura1: You are partially adding cyber-squatted or otherwise re-used URLs, which are automatically mirrored on enwiki where an infobox exist (and possibly other projects). This is highly unfavorable, and you do not seem to have checked any of the links you mass-added. Lordtobi (talk) 10:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- It's normal that websites of defunct companies aren't live anymore. Why would enwiki automatically mirror them? Did you design that? --- Jura 10:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- This has been part of the template for years, and Infobox company is not the only template affected by this. Ultimately, Wikidata is supposed to deliver information useful across all Wikimedia projects. Defunct URLs are not useful, especially when displayed directly to the reader. Lordtobi (talk) 10:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- Well, it's time to fix the template then. The reader could still use the url to look up the website in the internet archive. --- Jura 10:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- I sincerely disagree. The way you re-instantiate these links, any reader (provided Wikidata has any ordinary "readers") would not know that a link is defunct and check it, potentially exposing them to threats. Even if they find it to defunct/squatted/redirected, there is no guarantee that they would update it. Furthermore, the templates on enwiki (there are more than I could track, and other projects have them, too) have been working properly for years under the good-faith assumption of Wikidata being properly maintained. Many (but not all) pages on enwiki rely on the template's functionality to retrieve the website from Wikidata so that it does not have to be maintained locally. Pages where the link is removed locally, given that it is defunct, will continue to display the link because it continues to exist here. The local Infobox company template could be changed to not display links where they have been flagged as deprecated, but that would require Wikidata URLs to be flagged correctly in the first place (in all your restorations, all of the dead links were not flagged at all). And this would have to be carried over to every template there is, which far exceeds my capabilities (especially on foreign wikis, where I have no template editing rights). The easiest way to maintain it is to not include misleading links here from the get-go. Lordtobi (talk) 13:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- If you don't want to fix the infobox locally, you could add "no value" with preferred rank at Wikidata. In any case, you should not delete valid information from Wikidata. --- Jura 10:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
- Tagging URLs as deprecated works and they are not mirrored in my primary use-case (Infobox company), which only displays normal+ properties. I cannot speak for all templates there are, though. It remains up to editors like you and &beer&love, who insert these en masse, to ensure that deprecated URLs add are tagged correctly. You cannot expect other users to hunt down all of your contributions and correct them for you. Unless, of course, you intend to mislead users with these URLs. Lordtobi (talk) 10:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
- Most people know that defunct companies don't run websites.
- At Wikidata we have no control of the use datausers make of information from Wikidata. Some Wikipedias regularly follow Wikidata to keep their implementation up to date. Apparently enwiki hasn't done anything for years and for some odd reason, you do dozens of deletions on Wikidata instead of fixing it.
- I think I outlined the way Wikidata handles this information and the various ways you can contribute and/or make use of it (or not). In any case, please stop deleting valid information from Wikidata. --- Jura 10:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
- Tagging URLs as deprecated works and they are not mirrored in my primary use-case (Infobox company), which only displays normal+ properties. I cannot speak for all templates there are, though. It remains up to editors like you and &beer&love, who insert these en masse, to ensure that deprecated URLs add are tagged correctly. You cannot expect other users to hunt down all of your contributions and correct them for you. Unless, of course, you intend to mislead users with these URLs. Lordtobi (talk) 10:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
- If you don't want to fix the infobox locally, you could add "no value" with preferred rank at Wikidata. In any case, you should not delete valid information from Wikidata. --- Jura 10:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
- I sincerely disagree. The way you re-instantiate these links, any reader (provided Wikidata has any ordinary "readers") would not know that a link is defunct and check it, potentially exposing them to threats. Even if they find it to defunct/squatted/redirected, there is no guarantee that they would update it. Furthermore, the templates on enwiki (there are more than I could track, and other projects have them, too) have been working properly for years under the good-faith assumption of Wikidata being properly maintained. Many (but not all) pages on enwiki rely on the template's functionality to retrieve the website from Wikidata so that it does not have to be maintained locally. Pages where the link is removed locally, given that it is defunct, will continue to display the link because it continues to exist here. The local Infobox company template could be changed to not display links where they have been flagged as deprecated, but that would require Wikidata URLs to be flagged correctly in the first place (in all your restorations, all of the dead links were not flagged at all). And this would have to be carried over to every template there is, which far exceeds my capabilities (especially on foreign wikis, where I have no template editing rights). The easiest way to maintain it is to not include misleading links here from the get-go. Lordtobi (talk) 13:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- Well, it's time to fix the template then. The reader could still use the url to look up the website in the internet archive. --- Jura 10:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- This has been part of the template for years, and Infobox company is not the only template affected by this. Ultimately, Wikidata is supposed to deliver information useful across all Wikimedia projects. Defunct URLs are not useful, especially when displayed directly to the reader. Lordtobi (talk) 10:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- It's normal that websites of defunct companies aren't live anymore. Why would enwiki automatically mirror them? Did you design that? --- Jura 10:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Jura1: You are partially adding cyber-squatted or otherwise re-used URLs, which are automatically mirrored on enwiki where an infobox exist (and possibly other projects). This is highly unfavorable, and you do not seem to have checked any of the links you mass-added. Lordtobi (talk) 10:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Vandalism edit
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikidata. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Kirilloparma (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Can you please explain why you keep vandalizing the items and delete valid information? It looks like that nothing has changed since last time. If you keep deleting valid content from Wikidata you may be blocked. @Jura1: Please check this user once agin, since nothing seems to have changed. This user has removed and continues to remove a lot of valid information from Wikidata. Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Kirilloparma: The claim that Serious Sam 4 uses Serious Engine 4 is completely unsubstantiated. Croteam has never announced this, the engine's website does not say this, and what has been shown off for the game is clearly far different from what was seen in The Talos Principle (six years ago!), which was the first and only title to use Serious Engine 4. Russian Wikipedia cites this source to cite the engine version, but note that the claim (for "Serious Engine 4" specifically) is not even given there, just that another enhanced version of the Serious Engine will be used (most likely v5; only time will tell). On top, the website is on English Wikipedia's unreliable sources list. You did not check this and instead manual-reverted me so that I would not be notified of the change. I did check the sources and thus removed the claim. That Wikidata does not support edit summaries for such edits is troublesome. IceWelder (talk) 16:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- @IceWelder: On top, the website is on English Wikipedia's unreliable sources list. Alright, firt of all, we are not on enwiki. Wikidata isn't based on Wikipedia guidelines, therefore, we must comply with consensus established right here (on Wikidata), and not on enwiki. Secondly, I wasn't talking about this specific edit, but about your general contribution to Wikidata. In 2019 you were already warned about removing valid information from Wikidata, and you were invited to stop doing this, but as far as I can see from your contribution list, since 2019, that is to say, after the warning, you keep anyway to remove valid information from Wikidata. Is this some kind of April Fools' joke or what!? Your edits are clearly unconstructive and considered as vandalism. So once again, please refrain to remove valid content from Wikidata, otherwise you may be blocked. My advice: please use talk page in such cases and ping participants or projects instead of removing the valid items if you want to clarify something. Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- P.S. And here we are. It's a good example of removal of valid information. And yeah, this is just one example of hundreds of such edits you have done ... Can you explain why you keep doing this? Kirilloparma (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- That seems like I removed it by accident while purging the page of vandalism and errors (such as the person's supposed membership in the Chinese Communist Party). I restored the name claim and fixed the "position held" claim. I think it is not really helpful to label any possibly erroneous edit one does as vandalism/bad faith. I am mostly an enwiki editor, so I do not know all the ins and outs of Wikidata. If I made a mistake, I would appreciate aid in fixing that instead of having a block advocated against me. IceWelder (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Kirilloparma: The claim that Serious Sam 4 uses Serious Engine 4 is completely unsubstantiated. Croteam has never announced this, the engine's website does not say this, and what has been shown off for the game is clearly far different from what was seen in The Talos Principle (six years ago!), which was the first and only title to use Serious Engine 4. Russian Wikipedia cites this source to cite the engine version, but note that the claim (for "Serious Engine 4" specifically) is not even given there, just that another enhanced version of the Serious Engine will be used (most likely v5; only time will tell). On top, the website is on English Wikipedia's unreliable sources list. You did not check this and instead manual-reverted me so that I would not be notified of the change. I did check the sources and thus removed the claim. That Wikidata does not support edit summaries for such edits is troublesome. IceWelder (talk) 16:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Furthermore, this case, where I am trying to curb the spread of misinformation, is vastly different from November's case. I was removing cyber-squatted URLs (former websites now occupied by viruses, pornography, or otherwise) that are automatically mirrored to Wikipedias, putting readers at risk. This was considered bad practice and I was asked to set such URLs to deprecated instead, which I have since done for every one I found. IceWelder (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Alright, but back then your edits were still wrong .. If you see that the link to the official website for some reason is unavailable, broken or dead, this does not mean that it can be removed, since you can always add an archive link that actually will be available to the reader instead of a dead link to avoid the risks (see example). If you need to remove specifically broken link from enwiki then you need to do this locally and not remove for no reason links here on Wikidata because of your broken Infobox-template on enwiki ... I remind you that remove links on Wikidata for no reason is unacceptable, especially if it is related to other Wikimedia projects, because this will affect not only on enwiki, but also on other Wikipedia language sections that use the official website (P856) property in the infobox. Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- I was not aware that there was an option to mark a value as "deprecated", so I resorted to deletion of links that might cause the reader to reach unwanted pornographic content. As you note correctly, this problem affects not only enwiki, but all Wikipedias that use Wikidata-aware infoboxes. Mirroring links from Wikidata is the intended behaviour of most infoboxes; they are not "broken". I have since learned that links marked as "deprecated" are not automatically mirrored by most infoboxes, which seems to be the "correct" way of solving the aforementioned problem. I have stuck to that method since. When I still remove links, as I did, it is because they were erroneously placed in the first place. In this example, the corporate website of Valve was classified as the personal homepage of its founder, Gabe Newell, although the website does not host such a segment. IceWelder (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Alright, but back then your edits were still wrong .. If you see that the link to the official website for some reason is unavailable, broken or dead, this does not mean that it can be removed, since you can always add an archive link that actually will be available to the reader instead of a dead link to avoid the risks (see example). If you need to remove specifically broken link from enwiki then you need to do this locally and not remove for no reason links here on Wikidata because of your broken Infobox-template on enwiki ... I remind you that remove links on Wikidata for no reason is unacceptable, especially if it is related to other Wikimedia projects, because this will affect not only on enwiki, but also on other Wikipedia language sections that use the official website (P856) property in the infobox. Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Kirilloparma: I changed the claim to just "Serious Engine", which is actually supported by the source. IceWelder (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Checked. Thanks for the clarification. Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- If you think Wikipedia shouldn't display data from Wikidata, the thing to do is to configure the relevant infobox accordingly, not to delete data here. --- Jura 20:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- That's literally what I said I am now doing. Local infoboxes will not automatically know which non-deprecated URLs are cybersquatted and which are not, so the relevant process is to mark data as deprecated (which I would have done from the outset if anyone had told me it exists). When I still remove data, I do so because it is plainly incorrect, as was the case here. I explained both points above already. IceWelder (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Q23648408 edit
Do you think we should add the information from the leaks ito the item? (the two protagonists, narrative location) or what else? Trade (talk) 17:48, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
- Not for now, I think. The game is still in development and this can change by the time of release. It would be a wasted effort if he had to remove and re-add it all then. IceWelder (talk) 17:51, 19 September 2022 (UTC)