Wikidata

Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2017/08

< Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard‎ | Archive‎ | 2017
This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion.

Q7859785 / user:Marian13333

Please stop this vandalism. Q7859785 is also frequently vandalized by IPs. Thanks -- HvW (talk) 05:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

  Done; 3 month autoconfirmed users only. Thanks for reporting, MisterSynergy (talk) 05:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Vandal

Please block as soon as possible the IP 2001:8003:2421:9400:7DC8:B9FF:B41B:B2EC and revert all of his edits.

  Done --Pasleim (talk) 09:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Archaeodontosaurus

User:Archaeodontosaurus is reverting my edits in Francesco Pittoni (Q3081058) and we need a second opinion. The issue is that the user is insisting on adding their photograph to image (P18) property of that item, despite of the fact that the photograph does not depict Francesco Pittoni (Q3081058) only one of his paintings. image (P18) is used by Commons creator templates and those templates traditionally do not show pictures of the artist's notable work (P800) only depictions of the artists. Can someone prevent the user from adding his photographs of painting to biographical items? I am OK with creating new property for that purpose but image (P18) is for depictions of the subject. --Jarekt (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

If this field is not filled by a self-portrait of the artist a work comes to fill this void. I have not invented this practice which exists in many cases where I did not intervene. As this field is used automatically in many countries for Infobox to leave it empty is a nonsense. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Wikidata does not care what others have in their infoboxes. Depiction of a work belongs to the work's item only. (For the property Jarekt mentions see Wikidata:Property proposal/image of representative work.) Matěj Suchánek (talk) 17:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Matěj can you (or other admin) than correct Francesco Pittoni (Q3081058)? I do not want to be in the edit war. --Jarekt (talk) 19:19, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  Done Another intentional restoring may be considered disrupting. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 19:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

5.196.187.2

It looks like vandalism. Anonymous cancels new edits. —Serhio Magpie (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes to me it looks like vandlism too. — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  Blocked Matěj Suchánek (talk) 18:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

MRI SCAN

Vandalism, deliting sitelinks. --Bigbossfarin (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Warned, last edited 9 days ago. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 07:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Crimea

And at last we have edit war on this topic: Q128499. Please judge us with User:Goo3. --Infovarius (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@Goo3:: Please respect other points of view. @Infovarius: Perhaps you could support the statement using 2014 Crimean status referendum (Q15838763). Matěj Suchánek (talk) 13:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
According to Ukrainian official and international point of view, this Referendum is illegal one as well as German Anschluss in 1938. Crimea stays internationally recognized as a part of Ukraine occupied by Russian troops using fake "votings". --Goo3 (talk) 13:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
For Wikidata that means that the Ukrainian view should be represented on the item. You can use statement supported by (P3680) to do so (and also add other view). It doesn't mean that opposing views are supposed to be removed from the item. It's not Wikidatas role to judge which side is right but to represent the views of both sides. ChristianKl (talk) 13:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Userbox

No me deja enlazar la usexbox es:Usuario:Userbox/Reversor Wikidata en Template:User Wikidata/Rollbacker. Sección Wikipedia (solo hay dos enlaces "en" y "ur"). --Jcfidy (talk) 07:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


Q2822101

Please semi-protect
--- Jura 12:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

  Done for three months. @Jura1: would you mind fixing the link for date of death (P570)/has cause (P828) which currently links to Fake (Q3738501)? Thanks. Jared Preston (talk) 12:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Featured articles in Portuguese-Wiki

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T172592

The articles You Know I'm No Good, Rehab (Amy Winehouse song) and Back to Black (song) are featured articles in Portuguese-Wiki, but I can't to update it in the English Wiki. (Sorry my bad english!) Raul Caarvalho (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

It's a known problem they aren't shown. See T172592. Mbch331 (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Please semi-protect Q697299

Some IPs keeps removing sitelinks in Q697299 without any reasons. Please semi-protect it. Thank you. --202.40.137.197 07:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

  Done --Pasleim (talk) 07:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Fusion d'article

Hi. I create tonite Gallois de Regard (Q36203002), but i realize after that Galeazzo Gegald (Q24962928) its the same but with his italian name, but he's savoian (french) peopple. I have a problem to make a fusion between the two. --B-noa (talk) 20:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

  Done - Mbch331 (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Fundir item Q18596481

Juntar com este item com (Q19918002). Feliciomendes (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

  Done. --Epìdosis 18:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC) P.S. @Feliciomendes: You can do it by yourself: see Help:Merge

Bug report

If I add the floruit item to a human and do a manual select of Century, no matter what number I enter, it always converts that to 1. Century during save. Akerbeltz (talk) 08:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood the input widget. If you wanted to save "17. century", you should have written "17. century". I suppose your input was "17" which means "the year 17". Conversion to precision of century changed it to the 1st century. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Rather counter-intuitive but thanks for explaining. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Need a block

Ref VANSMOOKEY (talk • contribs • logs). Clearly here to spam. --Izno (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Indef block   Done by User:Rschen7754. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 11:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Remove badge

Hello,

Could you please remove the badge of the Italian article Q187851 ?

Thank you. Skull33 (talk) 11:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

  Done. --Epìdosis 11:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Please semi-protect Q134160

Thanks. --
--- Jura 08:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

1 year didn't help, so now it's indefinite. Mbch331 (talk) 08:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm trying to merge two items, I get an error.

whole tone (Q13221615) and major second (Q17442397) I get an error: Error: Conflicting descriptions for language ru. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 17.78.122.153 (talk • contribs) at 20. 8. 2017, 09:46‎ (UTC).

As the messsage says, there are two different interwiki links from ru.wikipedia. This has to be solved before the merge. Pamputt (talk) 11:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
BTW, I do not think this two items should be merged. Pamputt (talk) 11:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
They cannot be merged because of conflicting links to eg. German Wikipedia. I added said to be the same as (P460) to both. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 12:07, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Agree that these two items should not be merged. Both major second (Q17442397) and diminished third (Q12378926) are examples of whole tone (Q13221615), but neither one is entirely synonymous on its own. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

please block

Orikasha (talk • contribs • logs) spammer--Mikey641 (talk) 15:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

  Done for indefinite time. Pamputt (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

descriptions hide

Hello, before few days I started the search about unsuitable (bad words/descriptions) that wrote as a description to some items in Arabic languages, unfortunately I found many like this and this. Can any admin help to hide it? --Alaa :)..! 18:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

  Comment when I said "bad words", it mean bad words from level 4 or 5 (if bad words evaluated from 5) --Alaa :)..! 18:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
@علاء: Would you provide a list of bad words for your language (on a dedicated subpage)? Matěj Suchánek (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
@Matěj Suchánek: of course I can make it and @باسم: can help me in it. Do you want to create abuse-filter? --Alaa :)..! 21:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
An abuse filter would be one solution, either a new one or an update to an existing one. But first, we should do a cleanup. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 13:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
@Matěj Suchánek: see here. I'll complete --Alaa :)..!
I wasn't able to find many, sorry. Anyway, would you check 1,000,000,000,000 (Q862978), Same-sex marriage in Malta (Q11691623), isogloss (Q201884), high-tech architecture (Q845318) and Ahmed Haroun (Q12179133)? Matěj Suchánek (talk) 10:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
@Matěj Suchánek: fantastic, I changed all of them   --Alaa :)..! 14:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
@Matěj Suchánek: When I'm using the advanced search I found a lot of these words! e.g Q12195822, shit (Q519), Your Sweet Six Six Six (Q26394), Cursing in Islam (Q12237281) and XVideos (Q3700050) ! and this item must delete fully! --Alaa :)..! 16:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Luckily, also I found images in commons with bad names for example  ! --Alaa :)..! 16:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
@Jan Dittrich (WMDE): @Ladsgroup: --Alaa :)..! 12:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Maxlag parameter not respected

There are a number of pseudo-bots using QuickStatements, Fatameh and other mass-editing tools, that don't really respect the maxlag parameter, because these tools doesn't have such a feature. Today between 11:56-12:35 UTC in a time span of ~40 minutes, while a number of bots based on Pywikibot stopped editing almost completely (only several edits) due to a high database lag, other bots and bot-like users continued to edit Wikidata items at a 'normal' speed (e.g. one of them at ~60 ed./min. [2461 edits] - based on QS, other at ~46 edpm [1837 ed.] - based on Fatameh), thus not allowing a decrease of database lag. Is this acceptable? I don't think so. Since this is not the first time when this happens, and there are no forecasts that per overall the editing activity on WD will decrease in the near future, to prevent more such situations I'd suggest asking formally the maintainers of these tools to improve them in order to respect the maxlag. --XXN, 20:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Magnus Manske: Quikstatements should respect maxlag. Currently the lag is a bit high because of a change and bots take it easy, but Quickstatements users are speeding. Could you please implement this? The only option we have as admins right now is blocking users or disabling QuickStatements, actions that are both very undesirable. Multichill (talk) 11:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Please bear in mind that dewiki and wikidatawiki are on the same shard, and wikidata replication lags in wikidata always will effect dewiki replication lags too. That's really not acceptable. All tools and bots should use maxlag parameters! Doc Taxon (talk) 12:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I left a message for Daniel Mietchen to check the lag issue (note that his bot isn't using original QuickStatements and even his past use of QuickStatement isn't exactly the usual way).
Oddly Researchbot-items shouldn't really impact other sites as they are mostly within a garden of their own (no sitelinks, linked from no other item).
We can't really ask users to stop contributing just because somewhere something lags.
--- Jura 12:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
There should be a wikidata bot policy where a maxlag parameter is duty. If the user doesn't observe it, the admins should stop the user account. Doc Taxon (talk) 13:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
The bot is at Research Bot.
--- Jura 13:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I've made a ticket for fatameh a feature to help users respect max lag. I think there is more to think about with how OAuth tools should respect max lag than bots because sometimes the user is actively waiting for a response and sometimes not. In the latter case the user should respect max lag but in the former perhaps not (just like a normal edit on wikidata). On MW:API:Etiquette whether or not the user is waiting seems to be the distinction that is made. This is hard for the tool to know. In my opinion decision of which maxlag level to respect is down to the user but tools should probably default to enforcing some max lag and then let the user override if they are waiting (although it would be good if the tool user/bot operator monitored this themselves too). T Arrow (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I was going to file a ticket for the upstream library, Wikidata Integrator, but it was already filed here. Harej (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Harej seems to be do lots of edits .. Not sure what tool it is. Bot?
--- Jura 16:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I implemented maxlag in Wikidataintegrator, can be used now. Sebotic (talk) 00:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I will look at implementing it in quickstatements (version 1 and 2), and all widar-based tools. That should cover much of the tool-based Wikidata traffic from my side. --Magnus Manske (talk) 08:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
WiDaR-based tools, including QuickStatements 1, should now work with maxleg.--Magnus Manske (talk) 08:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
@Magnus Manske: I just started Reproducible and replicable CFD: it's harder than you think (Q37905749) by way of Scholia and QuickStatements 1, which worked fine for 8 lines, but the last line
Processing Q37905749 (Q37905749 P2093 "Lorena A. Barba" P1545 "2") did not result in any edits because of a maxlag trigger:

ERROR (set_string) : Bad API response [setClaim]:

stdClass::__set_state(array( 

  'error' => 
 stdClass::__set_state(array(
    'code' => 'maxlag',
    'info' => 'Waiting for 10.64.16.34: 5.3354749679565 seconds lagged.',
    'host' => '10.64.16.34',
    'lag' => 5.3354749679565003,
    'type' => 'db',
    '*' => 'See https://www.wikidata.org/w/api.php for API usage. Subscribe to the mediawiki-api-announce mailing list at <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-api-announce> for notice of API deprecations and breaking changes.',
 )),
  'servedby' => 'mw1190',

))

I fixed this manually by simply rerunning this line, but I think QS should stop more gracefully here, or better yet offer to finish the job once the lag is back in the acceptable range. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 03:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I am doing some work on cinemas now and would gladly stop editing (by Quickstatements) whenever necessary, but how should I know? Why not tell us via a sitenotice? --Anvilaquarius (talk) 15:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Q496098

There is a new German wikipedia page concerning casting in general (all materials) w:de:Gießen (Urformen). The current link directs to casting in the sense metalworking. Please change.--Ephramac (talk) 10:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

It's been fixed by someone! -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

  Done--Ephramac (talk) 10:41, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/ScorumComBot

To bring attention to admins an unattributed account that is labelled as a bot that is editing in an area with what looks like vested interest at a minimum, noting the report at M:User:COIBot/XWiki/scorum.me  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Alext2793:?
--- Jura 14:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I blocked them indef as an unapproved bot and advised to file request for permissions.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Unblocked; they filed a bot request.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

protect Q42?

Quite complete item, place for tests edits for obvious reasons. d1g (talk) 04:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

  Support semi-protection. Mahir256 (talk) 05:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  Done - 1 month semi-protection. Mbch331 (talk) 05:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

vandalism

Please protect Will Smith (Q40096). Thanks, Jc86035 (talk) 11:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

  Done Matěj Suchánek (talk) 11:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

An IP just left this on my talk page

Don’t know what’s going on and just don’t want to take care of this. https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/JakobVoss&offset=20170825203248&limit=1000&target=JakobVoss

It’s the second topic on my talk page where an IP report strange stuffs in two weeks : see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:TomT0m I hate this.

author  TomT0m / talk page 18:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

That was an LTA. He's already blocked. Mbch331 (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Just to be clear, the IP may be an abuser but the claims that the edits pointed are wrong are not wrong either. It’s the whole set up (the edits and the reports) that needed admins attention. author  TomT0m / talk page 20:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Topic:Tx1hxu53apdkqq1w To complete the picture, Im engaged in a discussion that seem to go in the « nonsense and pointless» direction with Jakob. Assume Good Faith ? author  TomT0m / talk page 20:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

AliciaFagervingWMSE-bot

It seems that this continues editing while other bots and even quickstatements get stopped. Really odd that paid WMF projects keep running while volunteers get throttled.
--- Jura 05:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand problem; Looks like a heritage import: Drahtgasse 3 (Q37951424)
This would a lot of edits anywhere d1g (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
See #Maxlag parameter not respected, D1gggg. --Succu (talk) 21:19, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
@Alicia Fagerving (WMSE):--Ymblanter (talk) 18:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
AFAIK, this bot is Pywikibot based and will slow down when maxlag is causing problems. What makes you think otherwise? Multichill (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Ok, found the code. It's using Pywikibot so it respects maxlag.
@Jura1: please don't waste our time by insinuating WMF vs. volunteers nonsense. Especially stupid given the fact that WMSE (Wikimedia Sverige (Q15279144)) is in the name of the bot. Multichill (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
None asked you to do anything. Let's see what the operator has to say and how it's being funded. It did seem to run 24/7 without any throttling while people above complained about a couple of quickstatement edits being stopped and the servers are known to have problems.
--- Jura 02:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
@Vesihiisi: -- Innocent bystander (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Q38024725

I found that a new item Q38024725 is created for Prof. Sudhir G. Angur. I am not sure if this person is notable. He claims to be the Chancellor of Alliance University, but the Wikipedia article on w:en:Alliance University says that the Chancellor is unclear because of a family feud. I have difficulty in determining if this item is notable, and thought I would ask about it here. Please do delete the item if you find it not notable. --Netha Hussain (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

  Deleted by ValterVB (talk • contribs • logs). Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

PokestarFan Tamawashi back?

The IP user with 77.* and 78.* addresses who has been posting on Project Chat recently (seems to be a single person) exhibits to me some of the same characteristics that we saw in PokestarFan. Not sure what admin's can do, but maybe some warning's or summary reverts if there is real evidence for this? ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

It's User:Tamawashi. --Succu (talk) 13:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
User:Jura1 had the same idea two days ago: Special:Diff/534527468. —MisterSynergy (talk) 13:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
well, he's gone wild on Project Chat - look at the recent edits. Anything to be done here? I believe his recent edits on P279/P31 statements should all be reverted. However he does have a point that we have some old inconsistencies in this area that could be cleaned up. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Agree on reverts and inconsistencies, but improvement would be very minor compared to what every else does.
Properties are far more important than items created to supply "subject item" property with values. d1g (talk) 03:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
sure seems to be Tamawashi - look at this edit history [1] ... ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
As usual he is getting personal now. --Succu (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
and edit-warring with Innocent Bystander: [2] ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Request blocks for IPs 78.55.64.116, 77.180.25.231, and 85.181.255.117

The IP user, which is suspected to be the globally banned User:Tamawashi, vandalizes the deletion request from Wikidata:Identifiers (history) and insults me on my talk page: Topic:Tx1bozelfgwbpc5f (German for “You idiot”). This is unacceptable, of course, so I request other admins to block:

The IPs belong to ranges, but I am not used to that matter. I also want to mention that there may be other ranges this user can use to edit Wikidata. —MisterSynergy (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

  Done, for 31 h.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Now 77.179.58.13 (talk • contribs • logs). --Succu (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
78.55.235.175 (talk • contribs • logs) continues harassment on my talk page (Topic:Tx1nlzruih2d9ez2). —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  Done, both blocked. I am about going to bed, and I hope admins continue watching this topic which may require a fast reaction.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
85.181.240.40 (talk • contribs • logs) now with inappropriate comments on WD:PC and a user talk page. Anyone experienced with range blocks? Can WMF help us at meta wiki? —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Next 85.181.240.40 (talk • contribs • logs). --Succu (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Both blocked by Multichill--Ymblanter (talk) 05:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I was tired of playing this game so I blocked a bunch of ranges. Multichill (talk) 16:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Tnx.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
@Multichill: I think we can now remove the page protection from WD:PC again, to limit impact on other anon users. —MisterSynergy (talk) 05:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
It expires 02:00, 30 August 2017. Multichill (talk) 11:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

please block spammers

--Mikey641 (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any "spam" in those old edits. Why should they be blocked, there is no direct danger for the project? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
@sjoerddebruin: have you looked at the changes?? Changing labels to garbage, descriptions to gay and more inappropriate content.. no direct danger? That's not true at all, first of all the wikidata description appears in mobile mode. Also, Hebrew Wikipedia uses wikidata in infoboxes.--Mikey641 (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I can't read those languages, but I don't think we block users (or IP adresses) as punishment. Besides, they all did one edit and were never warned. We need volunteers that can recognize vandalism in these languages, blocking is useless. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 15:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
In general, blocking IP addresses only helps when there is repeated vandalism from that IP address. en:Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses#Block_lengths has a pretty good explanation. - Nikki (talk) 10:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
@Nikki: well then block 81.218.117.153 at least, all of his edits are wrong\spam (6). anyways, wikidata edits affects hebrew wikipedia, yet it is not as well patrolled as the hebrew wikipedia, and that's why a requested to block them. Usually, a person who spams once, will do it again, and blocking them from editing could only help wikidata.--Mikey641 (talk) 11:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
@Mikey641:IP banning isn't equivalent to banning people. The might have a dynamic IP and edit Wikidata the next time from another IP. At the same time the IP might be assigned to another innocent user in the future. ChristianKl (talk) 11:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Stephane.dohet

Hello, I am an inexperienced user on wikidata. I use much more (French) wikipedia. I would like to draw attention to an user who has been banned many times on French Wikipedia, by using many sock-puppets (see reports fr:Wikipédia:Faux-nez/Stephane.dohet) and he has also been banned once on Spanish Wikipedia.

This person is famous to disorganise French wikipedia by renaming Belgium and Walloon region to Wallonia, moving pages, and to create new categories massively and edit warring with anyone not complying. I believe he is doing the exact same disorganisation on wikidata, and he has done it with at least two different usernames here. Those two usernames are Paraloux (talk • contribs • logs) and Renkin-Swalem (talk • contribs • logs) (a check-user will definitely be positive, as it was on fr.wikipedia). He also sent postal threat letters to another user's private address, and also clearly said on French wikipedia he doesn't believe in WP project and that he is just there for his political agenda. I hope the administrators will understand the danger this persons represents for Wikidata and the other projects. Speculoos (talk) 11:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your notice. The second account has already been banned globally. I wonder why this hasn't been applied to the first account. It seems that we will face the abuse from IPs... Could some French-speaking sysops pay attention to this? Matěj Suchánek (talk) 18:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the answer. Indeed, the second account has been globally locked. And indeed the same person is using IP address now (as you can see on the reports on French Wikipedia, it is the same kind of IP). Perhaps we could semi-protect Q83078 and Q231? Speculoos (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Q83287 protection

Please semi-protect Selena Gomez (Q83287) - popular theme, frequent IP vandalism from various IP addresses.--Jklamo (talk) 19:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)--

10th protection for this item, thus now 1 year autoconfirmed users only. —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Getting reverted without arguments by Pigsonthewing

I'm getting reverted on Edward Murphy (Q35243900) by Pigsonthewing (talk • contribs • logs) without any arguments. The source given for the statement instance of (P31)human (Q5) doesn't support the said claim, it's also unneeded according to Help:Sources. This isn't the first time the user behaves like this and also not the first time we are talking about references for such statements. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 12:09, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

It is rather weird to see the same ref added six times in one item, while it supports (in a quite limited way) only two or three facts. - Brya (talk) 13:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
That's the typical behaviour we see, really troublesome. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Reference was copy pasted and you see it twice with 551 - clearly an oversight or even glitch. d1g (talk) 06:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
And it got reverted again, no arguments and no comments here. Can another administrator please take action? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 16:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
I blocked them for 72h.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
I see a block, though wonder why there is a talk page block as well. The person is entitled to argue their case politely and forcefully at their talk page without harm to the admin or the project. Blocking their talk page is punitive and censorial, and just pisses off the user. Admins should be able to take vigorous criticism whether they consider it fair or not, it goes with the mop and ones ability to wield it.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:21, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
I also don't think a talk page block is appropriate, as I linked to a policy regarding the statement in question in my edit summary that he should have the opportunity to contest. Mahir256 (talk) 22:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, they did argue their case but not extremely politely, and I was afraid they will say smth leading to a longer block. I will now have a look though and see whether removal of a block restoring of a talk page access is a reasonable option.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that reconsideration of talk page access.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Continues without given arguments, further action is needed. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 11:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Sjoerd, now he made an effort to open the talk page discussion. I would expect a bit more constructive approach from your side, beyond the statement "I have explained everything earlier". If there is any constructive discussion at all possible, this is the time and place to have it.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I am concerned that User:Sjoerddebruin is simply exercising personal preference in his reverts. Although it is reasonable to argue that we don't need a reference for "instance of human being", that is certainly not equivalent to making the argument to remove a reference that is already supplied. Wikidata is poorly enough referenced as it is, without references being removed unnecessarily. Both casual readers and third party re-users benefit from having statements verified by citing the source - it is not immediately obvious to anyone unfamiliar with the subject that Edward Murphy (Q35243900) is a real person, rather than perhaps a fictional character, etc. Valid sourcing improves Wikidata, and I find it difficult to understand the mentality of anyone who repeatedly removes valid sources, no matter how trivial the statement concerned. --RexxS (talk) 18:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

As I didn't get an explanation for the earlier revert (User talk:Pigsonthewing), could someone undo this edit?
--- Jura 17:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

List of Death Note chapters

Hi! Can an admin fix this adding the GA quality in the Es.wiki version? Thank you! --TeenAngels1234 (talk) 19:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

  Done--Ymblanter (talk) 05:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Block two IP

Hello, could you please block two IP addresses that are used by globally locked Renkin-Swalem (talk • contribs • logs) :

And semi-protect Q231 and Q83078. Thank you, Speculoos (talk) 10:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

  Done  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ymblanter (talk • contribs) at 31. 8. 2017, 11:21 (UTC).

Wikimedia username (P4174)

While we decide on its deletion, can we limit additions of this property to users who match the username and admins? It seems to be added by IP .. Maybe we can explicitly authorize other users who confirm that they are aware of the WMF privacy policy.
--- Jura 16:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

This should be different board?..
We shouldn't enter such information at masse or advocate its usage, but we should have an option to enter userID
This should be done similar to other social-media properties (twitter Facebook account e.t.c)
I.e. we shouldn't be overly paranoid (remove any personal property), but also we shouldn't enter personal information against will. d1g (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Admins can set corresponding filters.
--- Jura 06:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
@Jura1: Can you please see back your deletion request? There's an army of users that made petition to let you to withdraw it. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you read or understood the debate.
It seems it needs an administrator to sum it up. There are a few suggestions on how to use it and series of incorrect assumptions about its use that need to be addressed. A most interesting question hasn't been responded to either. I wonder if an argument that people may circumvent it is to be considered an argument for or against deletion. As I'm just a user (not the website operator nor an administrator of the site), I think I have done my part.
--- Jura 09:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
@Jura1: Whatever you say, your PFD request has only 5   Delete, 1   Neutral, 2   Comment, but 15   Keep, so stop it, this property won't really hurt you, and any usages that violate WMF policies can be Oversighted rather than overkilled. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Please, stop this here. Could a non-involved administrator close that request? (I didn't vote but did express my opinion there.) Matěj Suchánek (talk) 11:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Taxonomical mafia

Sorry, but I am fed up with long-lasting conflict inside taxonomical project. More precisely with users Succu and Brya. They are no doubt very useful members doing strictly taxonomical nomenclature but sometimes they do strange (and in my opinion wrong) things and, what is more awful, insist on it and do mass reverts (and I feel being harassed).

1) They think that their point of view is singularly correct and revert other opinions: deleting sourced statements about "обезьяны - таксон".

2) Brya says that Parachela (Q13419378) is not homonym (Q902085) of Parachela (Q721722) (but it is a definition of homonym (Q902085)!). And then see mass reverts with comment "not a homonym". Succu then simply silently deletes useful links.

3) Can anyone mix Ciconiiformes according to Sibley (Q2972287) and Ciconiiformes (Q21716)? I belive that users with en/fr/es/... default languages can. But any try to connect them is immediately reverted. How can two so similar items be not "same" and not "different"?

4) they don't like to keep history of science. When the news were published that Huiyuan (Q28673)conservation status (Q82673) of giraffe is changed, Succu has simply replaced the value. For the first time, it's Ok. But when I changed statuses to keep history: [3], Succu began to revert me immediately (note the interval after my edits!). Saying about constraints - they should not be an obstacle for keeping useful information.

5) The same story is about taxon (Q13357594). There is such situations in taxonomy when some taxons ceased to be used. I would like to model these situations, at least simply by taxon (Q13357594) + may be replaced by (P1366) (such information is often available). There is category in many Wikipedias for that. But guess what? "taxon (Q13357594) are not taxa so this information should not be modelled!" (I understand this POV from discussion).

6) Do you want to know which species are practically immortal (more exactly - with negligible senescence (Q2076450))? But you are not allowed to know this. Succu has decided. (I added a dozen of such statements, but they were fiercely reverted, so I give up). example Note that statements arewere well sourced.

The saddest thing that most times they are not trying to adopt new information (may be by changing a scheme, by choosing different property of class), but only persistent reverting... Am I alone in this confrontation or anyone would support me?

Should I or them have some type of topic ban to prevent such conflicts? --Infovarius (talk) 09:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

To a considerable extent this is due to sloppiness on the part of Infovarius, and some of it is due to contrariness. Speaking in general, there are two elements involved here: 1) nomenclature (which deals with absolutes, things which are so by definition) and 2) taxonomy (which depends on points-of-view, of which there are many, and which should be referenced if at all possible).
  1. In the matter of "monkeys", there are no doubt a lot of possible points-of-view involved, but the problems are on a more pragmatic level. The item involved deals with a common name, as in the enwiki page. Infovarius started to halfheartedly include taxon elements in the item, which did not in the item, and which did no mesh with each other. The "source" he provided supported the fact that somebody (unspecified), somewhere (unspecified), somewhen (unspecified) used the name Simiae as a synonym of the name Primates; not very useful in any case. However he used it as a reference for his position that the name Simiae was a taxon name for "monkeys" (which are only one of three parts of the Primates/Simiae). A mess from any perspective.
  2. The "description" at homonym (Q902085) is there for the purpose of disambiguation. It is not a definition. In fact, defining "homonym" in a technically correct way can be quite complicated, as it involves more than one nomenclatural universe.
  3. The matter of Ciconiiformes according to Sibley (Q2972287) and Ciconiiformes (Q21716) can be argued any which way; nothing we have is quite right. I guess "different from" is not so bad, but it is less than perfect.
  4. I don't understand the Q15083 case, although of course it is awkward if a circumscription is changed (in some cases splitting in two items may help). It seems to me that it is pretty universal for any property linking to an external database that the claim value should be in that database (at the time the claim is made). If history is to be preserved [?], this should be done elsewhere in a URL-claim, or with a new property. (10:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC))
  5. taxon (Q13357594) is blunt instrument that could do a lot of damage. There are a few cases where it could be somewhat useful, but it wasn't used there. See discussion.
  6. This is the first I heard of biological immortality (Q1660153) and negligible senescence (Q2076450), this is not matter of taxonomy, but it seems that for Wikidata something like maximum life span would be considerably more accurate. - Brya (talk) 16:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. Actually some of questions don't deal with nomenclature/taxonomy at all, they just happen to be at taxon items (6), so I propose to keep your hands off such statements. 3rd seems to be the easiest - the world (and it's description in Wikidata) is not perfect - I am happy with different from (P1889) and I will be happy if you will invent other way to link them, deal? In 4th I've meant IUCN conservation status (P141), sorry, fixed. And I insist on keeping the history of statuses - it is not hard but useful. Infovarius (talk) 19:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
„I insist on keeping the history of statuses“? Sorry, I maintain this property for a while now, Infovarius. Are you sure you understand how the IUCN evaluates? --Succu (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
@Succu: I hope so, are there some subtleties? I suppose that some species can extinct or contrarily to be revived from nearly extinction by specific programs, and it is reflected by IUCN evaluation, isn't it true? --Infovarius (talk) 11:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
These issues with respect to taxonomy are real enough. The history of many species is quite diverse and it is not possible to model this at this time in Wikidata. What I propose is for Succu to write down the assumptions he has with respect to taxonomy, particularly botanic taxonomy. It is then possible to compare it with other views on taxonomy and seek commonalities, we can ask experts to validate the different approaches and find out how Wikipedias can be served in a more inclusive way.
The current model has served us relatively well. It is one way to include a view on taxonomy particularly for what is the "current" or an "accepted" view. This model is not universal but it is a start. With the increasing confrontations it is high time to take a step back and assess what we have, the backgrounds of this model and the issues that need a solution. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 11:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Actually, the current model can accommodate a near-infinite number of (referenced) taxonomic viewpoints, it is just that there are not many users who take the trouble of putting these in. - Brya (talk) 11:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I think we have all necessary properties to model taxonomic opinions and how they evolved over time. --Succu (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
@GerardM: Besides our tutorial draft I proposed to have a FAQ page. Nobody was interested. --Succu (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
The problem with a fact is that it is supposed to be "how things are" and that is very much under dispute. I have written already some time ago what I know are the components of a valid taxonomic (botanical) description. What I am seeking is your arguments why we fail at this. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 04:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I claim no expertise in taxonomy but I am concerned when situations like (6) (and possibly some of the others) above happen with no consequences in wikidata. This is clearly an edit war, with Infovarius and Succu adding and reverting at least 4 times each on the same statement. From the change comments it appears Succu first asked for a source, but then when Infovarius provided one, changed the complaint to one of improper use of the property. I assume both parties are trying to make wikidata better, but perhaps the UI is preventing a reasonable discussion in a case like this? Should they have tried to sort it out on the talk page for Q691364? This is far from the first time I've noticed an edit war here, they seem to be harder to resolve here than on other wikimedia platforms. Perhaps the admins could be more active in helping resolve these situations? ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
@Succu: FAQ. - Brya (talk) 04:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I found it yesterday. :( --Succu (talk) 05:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
@GerardM: if you want output in the format "Echinocactus Link & Otto Verh. Vereins Beford. Gartenbaues Konigl. Preuss. Staaten 3: 420. 1827", Wikidata should, basically, be able to do this. But somebody should input the information first. - Brya (talk) 05:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Please give me one example. Echinocactus will do. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 07:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Done nearly four years ago. ;) --Succu (talk) 06:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
@GerardM: if the information is in Wikidata, it can be output; it just is a matter of organizing output (not my department). The only thing that seems to be missing here is a property for conversion to the approved abbreviation, which in this case is "Verh. Vereins Beförd. Gartenbaues Königl. Preuss. Staaten" - Brya (talk) 10:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
@Infovarius: 1, 5 seems right; and maybe 3 - 30-40 year old listings aren't very useful or need a lot of work to integrate with other sources
2. fish should "do not confuse"d with micro-animals; @Succu, Brya: 2 links shouldn't make a problem
4. History should be kept; I did mistake of removing "old" value today. This is not critical, but we absolutely should keep "historic" and "old" values if one has time to edit such things.
6. negligible senescence (Q2076450) can be considered as quality of life, so has characteristic (P1552) is appropriate @Succu:. Furthermore we shouldn't remove sourced statements. Project seem more then okay at first glance: http://genomics.senescence.info/about.html.
"are not trying to adopt new information (may be by changing a scheme, by choosing different property of class), but only persistent reverting"
@Infovarius:, to some extend they correct edits, but @Succu: and @Brya: should do this more often.
E.g. it is very easy to confuse one chemical from another or to use inexact item. We should enter more correct items over removing even slighted inaccuracies.
Same about properties. d1g (talk) 20:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

carrot (Q81)

I wounder why it is necessary to remove trivial culinary statements from carrot (Q81).

@Succu, Brya: given speed of your reverts, you have something to say, any comments? d1g (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

User:D1gggg wants to put in that a carrot is a fruit; there is something very seriously wrong here. - 06:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

damage to H.S.

Apparently, meaningless edit war continues.

No idea what is meant by "ref does not match"

Both @Succu, Brya: bragging about references. Yet, each is of them is dead as grave when asked "what constitutes H.S. ration?".

Note how @Succu: started new discussion instead of addressing my question.

It feels like a waste of time to work this way. d1g (talk) 04:25, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

It is a huge waste of time and work; User:D1gggg should stop messing about. - Brya (talk) 07:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Humulus lupulus (Q104212)

Silent stalking by @Succu:.

I was never contacted about questionable edits. @Succu: simply restored version they prefer for whatever reason. d1g (talk) 04:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

At how many place do you want to discuss cases like this? Your claims are obviously incorrect. --Succu (talk) 05:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
User:D1gggg keeps trying to push the boundaries, making edits which are not just misinformed, or a bit wrong, but which are way beyond comprehension. - Brya (talk) 07:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

You can all see their "constructive" suggestions and their direction in project. @Brya, Succu:

We shouldn't allow that to happen for years. Neither we should approve such BM.

You can all see how I'm "pushing limits" here: Wikidata:Property_proposal/nutrient

Other users spend great lengths in explaining what is done or what should be done but @Brya, Succu: has this quality only when discussed on admin notice board. d1g (talk) 08:54, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

User:D1gggg confuses me with himself: I go to considerable lengths to explain, putting in notes on Talk pages, writing a Tutorial, etc. While he refuses, even when asked, to write a coherent sentence, or even to give a mere example. - Brya (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

edit war about natural physical object (Q16686022)

1 2 3 4

@Succu: what is your point? How your actions can be useful? d1g (talk) 06:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

You are referring to my talk page in an unreadable way. My point is you do not understand the difference between taxonomy (Q7211) and taxonomy (Q8269924). And you seems not to understand how an ontology (Q324254) makes use of it. --Succu (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

edit war Rougheye rockfish (Q691364)

typical @Succu:: no discussion, nothing, instant revert. d1g (talk) 09:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

It was suggest to use life expectancy (P2250). --09:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Your solution is mass reverting without further discussion. --Succu (talk) 09:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
It wasn't. It was revert.
It wasn't replaced with life expectancy (P2250).
This edit behavior is disruptive. d1g (talk) 09:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
@Succu: my solution is to enter data.
But your very screwed mind turns everything upside down. d1g (talk) 09:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Your goal is to provoke, not to enter data. If you want to do this you can e.g. use Age determination and validation studies of marine fishes: do deep-dwellers live longer? (Q29037912). --Succu (talk) 09:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
@Succu: Yet another dick move, not a surprise. pardon my french.
No edits about life expectancy (P2250), no edits about Age determination and validation studies of marine fishes: do deep-dwellers live longer? (Q29037912).
Only more commands who should did what. d1g (talk) 10:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Wikidata would be helped by the entering of data. Not by waving around vague magic words. - Brya (talk) 10:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
By the way, Age determination and validation studies of marine fishes: do deep-dwellers live longer? (Q29037912) is beyond the paywall... Even for our institution. --Infovarius (talk) 12:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

life expectancy (P2250) cannot replace negligible senescence (Q2076450) because organism can die as young at 3 years and as young at 1000 years. Simple lifespan does not tell about organism degradation over time, so edits were more than appropriate before @Succu: decided to "help" but more to revert and play blame game d1g (talk) 10:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

So your strategy is reverting first and explain later? --Succu (talk) 10:29, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
@Succu: Keep playing blame game? You shouldn't make your unhelpful removals in the first place.
Everything was said by @Infovarius:. I don't have approve every his statement. d1g (talk) 10:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
If life expectancy (P2250) is felt to be too vague, a suitable qualifier can be added. - Brya (talk) 10:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Neither your nor Infovarius explanations are correct. I removed the statements more than a half year ago. Meanwhile I learned a little bit more about this curious topic and I think these claims are OK, but should be refined. --Succu (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Ok?? Wow! It's a huge step! Please tell us, what is still wrong and how it can be refined? --Infovarius (talk) 12:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

pickled cucumber (Q1365891)

I'm working with national standards, but @Brya: decided to help with "sigh"

My understanding that tradition of cornichon comes from French cuisine. Not only "cornichon" size is well known national-wide but it is calibrated in standard.

But... Removed without comment.

Additional Q37964033 and Q37963931 are specified in GOST, but previous-next links were removed without any meaningful discussion. d1g (talk) 03:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

To my knowledge specific cultivars were selected only to get cornichons consistently and more easily. d1g (talk) 03:25, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

It is very curious that there never seems to be a match between the statements User:D1gggg makes and the sources he provides: in his "tradition of cornichon" it says cornichons are picked at one or two inches in length, while User:D1gggg's statement is "length 6cm". This leaves aside the question if this page is suitable as a reference and the question if cornichons are typical for the topic of the item. - Brya (talk) 05:16, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
If the size is calibrated in a standard, it should be possible to reference that claim. ChristianKl (talk) 07:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
I see that User:D1gggg claims to follow GOST; it should (probably, this is the first I have heard of it) be possible to include the GOST point of view in Wikidata. After all, we also link to the USDA. The way to do that would seem to be to propose a new property. Copying GOST as if it is a globally accepted standard is what should be called Sovjet-imperialism. - Brya (talk) 09:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
organicauthority.com is soviet imperalism
This exact GOST applies to 4 countries
@Brya: what you say is very close to racism and discrimination.
@Brya: are you drunk this whole week?.. d1g (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
@Brya: will you remove NATO propaganda with ISO next week?.. d1g (talk) 15:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
@Brya: you weren't reading: cornichon is French imperialism, not Soviet. d1g (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
If "are you drunk this whole week?.." is not an ad hominem, I don't know what is. - Brya (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
@D1gggg: please don't do that any more. --Infovarius (talk) 13:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

IUCN conservation status (P141)

@Succu: can you explain, why you think it's not useful to keep historic values for IUCN conservation status (P141) and remove the old one's when there's a change? ChristianKl (talk) 07:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I guess we could keep historic values for IUCN conservation status (P141), but the format to do so would be as URL. Otherwise, a new property could be proposed. - Brya (talk) 09:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
If I remember right this was discussed more than once. And I don't think this is the right place to restart such disussions. -Succu (talk) 09:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
@Succu: Can you reference the earlier discussion? The only discussion I can see is on the talk page of the property but at this point in time it was opened by Infovarius and nobody replied to it.
@Brya: I don't see why the format would be URL. Using point in time (P585) as qualifier and depricating the old values should be enough and would match how we treat similar cases on Wikidata. ChristianKl (talk) 12:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
It is not just the value, but also the reason, the actual information. It seems weird to preserve only the value for historical reasons, but not the actual information (hence a URL, probably to the wayback machine). And I see no reason not to include the time range at which the old information was valid. - Brya (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
I would see the justification for having a reference to the original source, but I don't see the need to change the datatype of IUCN conservation status (P141). ChristianKl (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Constantly I suspect that Brya doesn't know how the wiki (and Wikidata) works... Of course, there's no need to change P141, all is available with the aid of qualifieres and ranks. --Infovarius (talk) 11:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Q2964630

start time for what?

1500 BCE specified in Russian wikipedia.

We are close to Ancient Greece (Q11772), so it can be true.

@Brya: competence required. d1g (talk) 15:28, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Sigh. 1) Wikipedia is not a source. 2) In ruwiki somebody attached a "fact?" template to this (two years ago) asking for a reference, and nobody has found one. 3) Even if there were a reference for it, that still leaves the question "start time for what?" The root has existed for a lot longer, and all kind of start dates are possible. It should be possible to find a time since when it was part of the Russian cuisine (referenced) and this could be added as a qualifier to "Russian cuisine", but just a start time in general is weird. - Brya (talk) 16:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

On behalf of all Wikimedia projects, I ask to ban @Brya: with his approach "it doesn't says so" until person is competent.

Competence is required.

https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%A8%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BD:%D1%8D%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D1%85%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BD

Theophrastus (Q160362) 200 BCE at very least, not 1500. d1g (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I placed culinary claim at correct place. It seems weird that @Brya: needs assistance to adjusts "culinary" start dates from botanical. d1g (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Q13357594

And now User:Succu completely exterminates disliked term. --Infovarius (talk) 11:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

A term you invented. --Succu (talk) 12:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive/2017/08&oldid=657460258"