Wikidata

Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2021/07

< Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard‎ | Archive‎ | 2021

CPSU website...

The CPSU item is semi-protected. Please revert this edit. (CPSU obviously didn't have a website, and the added website is related to another organisation.) — 2A00:1370:8129:968E:A657:F174:BBA2:AEF9 17:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

  Done --Lymantria (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Lymantria (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:213.167.198.24

213.167.198.24 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: LTA on Tarkan (Q485771) —Eihel (talk) 05:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

  Done by Kostas20142 —Eihel (talk) 07:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. —Eihel (talk) 07:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

User Block Request Khagendrawiki

Khagendrawiki (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))
Promotional only account Rockpeterson (talk) 12:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

  Done Indef. --Lymantria (talk) 06:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Lymantria (talk) 06:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning 160.154.76.85

160.154.76.85 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) is apparently trying to hijack IP address (Q11135). --Hjart (talk) 20:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Hjart: Blocked for a week, and the item semi-protected indefinitely. Mahir256 (talk) 21:13, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Wiki13 (talk) 08:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

semiprotect Q334711

Please semiprotect Inca Garcilaso de la Vega (Q334711) for some time or indef – repeated vandalism --Emu (talk) 09:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I protected for a year to start with--Ymblanter (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Wiki13 (talk) 08:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning vandal

Please block this vandalism-only account. Thanks! Aranya (talk) 02:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Done by Mahir256. —Hasley+ 03:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Wiki13 (talk) 08:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protect for three researchers

Krishnan Rathinasamy (Q87964186), Baiju G Nair (Q85197471) and‎‎ Anaul Kabir (Q79237943) have all been blanked four times now. Please consider semi-protecting them. --Emu (talk) 08:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

  Done for 1 month. Hazard-SJ (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Hazard-SJ (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Please protect Priyanka Chopra (Q158957)

Many vandalisms. (｀・ω・´) (talk) 03:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

  Done semi'd for a month. Mahir256 (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Attack on Talk page of User:Chaduvari

My Talk page has been subject to attack by this IP address three times. Due to persistent attacks on two users on tewiki, this ip address was range-blocked. After that they started the attacks here and at meta

I request the Admins to take action as deemed fit. Thanks. __Chaduvari (talk) 07:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

  Done /64 already blocked cross-wiki. Mahir256 (talk) 15:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:איתי עדן

איתי עדן (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: vulgar hebrew edits Alondon17 (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning IP sock 178.139.229.195

Block evasion by LiliaMiller2002 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)).

178.139.229.195 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) started editing right after the latest sock was blocked (Yarina2021 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))).

Similar edits, changing years [1] and making crosswiki edits with incorrect information [2]. Geolocates to Spain like other IP socks. Sjö (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Tarkan (Q485771)

Repeated vandalism for several months, plz. Txs. —Eihel (talk) 06:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Done for 1 year by Mahir256. Aranya (talk) 12:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Aranya (talk) 12:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Smtfamilygroups

Smtfamilygroups (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism-only account.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Seems the user has been vanished last year. So no actions for now-❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 05:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Wiki13 (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Vulgar edits to Louis Armstrong item Q1779

An IP user has been making puerile changes to the English and Spanish descriptions on the Louis Armstrong item. Some form of protection / preventionseems appropriate? AllyD (talk) 12:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@AllyD: Indeed it is, and it has been done for three months. Mahir256 (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 23:27, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive edits

Somebody is making wrong merges to the level of vandalism, as in Spanish Africa (Q2826220). --E4024 (talk) 13:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Request intentional sitelink to redirect for Q107407155

superglue (Q107407155) - The item is needed because the Wikipedia articles on cyanoacrylate cover multiple topics (the chemical compounds cyanoacrylate (Q427161) and the adhesive product).

I tried to add a sitelink to "Super glue" on enwiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Super_glue&redirect=no). Apparently it needs an administrator to do this and mark as "intentional sitelink to redirect". Thanks! 73.170.147.86 20:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:179.6.160.231

179.6.160.231 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: User ist creating nonsense items. --Ameisenigel (talk) 09:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Done by Mahir256. —Hasley+ 14:48, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 23:27, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:119.12.232.19

119.12.232.19 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Nonsense edits related to airports/airlines. Please nuke creations (except Category:Airlines established in 2021 (Q107465995) - seems to be useful). Aranya (talk) 15:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Done. —Hasley+ 15:12, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

LTA vandal

At Q6086624. This vandal needs a long-term range block. Please do not tell me it is not possible. --E4024 (talk) 13:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

  Done /24 for 3 months. —Hasley+ 13:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
@E4024: Is the issue mainly on this item or more then one item? If it's just one item page protection would be more effective (it's not circumvented by changing IP addresses). ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 23:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Block evasion of 128.127.214.120

128.127.214.120 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) is evading their block with 213.166.131.200 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) (there's also 146.251.117.131 but that's a mobile provider).

The person behind this IP address (and many others: [3][4][5][6], etc.) clearly has a anti-social and disruptive behaviour, they never explain their reverts, never use the talk page, they engage in an endless edit war until the other person give up, has the same behaviour on others wikis (English Wikipedia [7][8][9][10], etc.).

Pinging some reverted users: Trade, Eurohunter if they want to add something.

Thanks. --Thibaut (talk) 07:09, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I semiprotected most of their favorite articles for one week, maybe we could put a longer time. I could block is adresses, but i feel that he will just use a new IP adress. Maybe we could use a abusefilter? Not sure this is possible, but I ask anyway. --Fralambert (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Fralambert.
For more context, here's a more complete list (enwiki). --Thibaut (talk) 17:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Pirate Party of Poland (Q7197815) - intentional sitelink to redirect

Hi. I tried to add the pl:Polska Partia Piratów sitelink to Pirate Party of Poland (Q7197815) with the "intentional sitelink to redirect" badge. (It redirects to the Pirate Party of Poland section of a Pirate Party (pl:Partia Piratów) article.) Unfortunately Wikidata won't let me and tells me to contact an administrator. Could you please add this link? —192.198.151.53 16:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

  Done Pamputt (talk) 18:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
@Pamputt: Thanks for adding the link. But an intentional sitelink to redirect (Q70894304) badge would still be useful to make it clear that this is an intentional link to a redirect, as opposed to a leftover after article merge on Wikipedia. —192.198.151.54 16:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, I have forgotten. Now done. Pamputt (talk) 16:38, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Ruthenian (Q13211). Problem in use

In the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, in the Ruthenian Voivodeship of the Kingdom of Poland and in the Principality of Moldavia, the language of the population (in whole or in part) and the official language of the office was Ruthenian. How to make it possible to indicate it as the native language of a person, the official language of the state, the language of chronicles. Example Vasily Lupu: Ruthenian is listed as the native language for spelling a name. In Wikipedia it looks awful. How can this be fixed? --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 09:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Shreyasinghchauhan

Shreyasinghchauhan (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Sockpuppet of Alexcarter0908 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)). Both users made items about Divyam Agarwal --Trade (talk) 11:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Globally locked--Ymblanter (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Seems like they forgot Saifchowdhury2005 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) Ymblanter--Trade (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
  Done--Ymblanter (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Wiki13 (talk) 11:42, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

IP block for 179.6.160.1

User creates large numbers of nonsense entries. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 21:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

  Done and nuked. Mahir256 (talk) 21:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Many thanks! Y'all get way too little gratitude for the work you do. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Wiki13 (talk) 11:42, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism

See Special:Contributions/Yauhen-400 --YarTim (talk) 07:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Sorry, i forgot that mother tongue of big procent of administrators is English, so I`ll tell more about edits:
  • [11] cynicism is ... emotial state of Homo Sapiens
  • [12] September 11 attack is terror attack to New York`s symbol
  • [13] SARS-CoV-2 is artifical virus found during the 2019-2020 Wuhan pneumonia outbreak
  • [14] Mozhaysky's airplane is predecessor of BOEING 747-400

etc. --YarTim (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

  Done--Ymblanter (talk) 19:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Wiki13 (talk) 11:42, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:186.54.77.116

186.54.77.116 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Persistent vandalism Valdemar2018 (talk) 05:03, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

  Done Blocked 2 weeks. Lymantria (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Wiki13 (talk) 11:42, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:181.29.229.145

181.29.229.145 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism on several items Flipwared (talk) 14:31, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

  Done Blocked 2 weeks. Lymantria (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Wiki13 (talk) 11:42, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Accusation of bullying

Hi. Chris.urs-o has made an accusation of bullying against an IP user at Wikidata:Project Chat#bullying (harassment). I have asked for more information but it would be useful if an Administrator could keep an eye on the topic. From Hill To Shore (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Seen it this morning, but I did not understand the bullying aspect from what was written there.
The IP user is actually a pretty prolific user that is active for months at least with thousands of edits:
From my patrolling experience, they are usually making good edits and they seem to be very familiar with how things are being done here. I do not have any idea about the reported issue, though. Anyways, we should treat this as a user conflict, even if the IP user is difficult to get in contact with. —MisterSynergy (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Unless Chris.urs-o provides some diffs to backup their accusations on project chat, I don't think their conduct is acceptable. I think we should consider blocking them. --- Jura 10:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
    They don't seem to be a native English speaker, so let's be careful when interpreting their comment. —MisterSynergy (talk) 10:24, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
    @Jura1: Did you have other interactions with him that make you thing he should be banned? When banning it's worth looking at the history of a user. If a person has one bad day that's no reason for blocking because there's a chance of the person understanding what they did wrong. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 23:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
    • I wrote "blocking", not banning. The project chat post isn't appropriate and I'd expect the user either to back it up or retract the comment. --- Jura 10:48, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Q9029098

Repeated vandalism at Mario Alberto Ishii (Q9029098) and Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (Q40649)

Thanks! Flipwared (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Gonzapere blocked, the two pages are already semi-protected by User:Mahir256 --Emu (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Emu (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

2001:2D8:6F51:EBA8:5B40:ECDA:A859:E4B (talk • contribs • logs)

Vandalism only ip. (^･ｪ･^) (talk)]] 05:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

All edits within a few minutes, no more vandalism for a week. Blocking now doesn’t seem to be necessary. --Emu (talk) 14:16, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Emu (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Again overcrowding

The page Requests for deletions is again overcrowded, so that the templates are no longer displayed correctly. In addition, the archiving bot also seems to be no longer able to use the site. At least since yesterday he has not made any edits to the site, although several deletion requests have been processed. --Gymnicus (talk) 09:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

cc @Pasleim: (^･ｪ･^) (talk) 10:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Works again. For now. --Emu (talk) 14:17, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Emu (talk) 14:17, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Grantmacdonaldfan ramranchreallyrocks

Grantmacdonaldfan ramranchreallyrocks (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: vandalism--Trade (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. --Emu (talk) 23:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Emu (talk) 23:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Julfikar Alli

Julfikar Alli (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Sockpuppet of Mokbul Alam (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)). Both users made items about Jason Harriman 

--Trade (talk) 11:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Q44437

Please semi-protect John Cena (Q44437) - high level of vandalism, popular theme. --Jklamo (talk) 08:38, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

  Protected for a year. --Minorax (talk) 09:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

confusing change

Could an administrator please take a look at this change and undo the deletion of deletion requests and comments? --Gymnicus (talk) 18:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

85.140.0.0/16

Please give a long block to User:85.140.0.0/16. It has already been blocked in January but it started again in vandalizing talk pages with nonsense posts. --Horcrux (talk) 07:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Wiki13 (talk) 14:34, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

"The time allocated for running scripts has expired."

 

Hello, Apologies in advance for reporting a non-issue here but I don't edit here and don't know if something's been vandalised,
Over at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Mercedes-Benz_Sprinter - In the Wikidata infobox it says "The time allocated for running scripts has expired.",
It doesn't say this on the Wikidata page itself nor does it say this on other Wikidata-infoxoes - just the infobox on Commons,
I wasn't sure if something's been vandalised, if it's a Wikidata thing or even a Commons thing,
Thanks, Kind Regards, Davey2010 (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@Davey2010: it's more likely a problem on the infobox on Commons. And maybe on your account only ? (interference with a gadget?) At least I don't see these error messages. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 08:40, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
@Davey2010: I have to agree with VIGNERON. This error does not appear for me at the moment, regardless of whether I am logged in or not. --Gymnicus (talk) 09:37, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Ah okay that's weird, I did wonder if it was related to one of my scripts - Wish I had logged out!, Hindsight's a lovely thing :),
The issue has since been fixed so would be interesting to know what the issue was,
Oh well thanks VIGNERON and Gymnicus for your help it's much appreciated, Thanks, Kind Regards, Davey2010 (talk) 10:39, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
@Davey2010:I've seen it once today and a couple times earlier. Appears to show up randomly.--Hjart (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Дарт вейпер

Дарт вейпер (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: repeated vandalism: 1 and 2 109.172.105.12 14:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for a week--Ymblanter (talk) 19:49, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Wiki13 (talk) 14:38, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Q2340747

vandalism لوقا (talk) 18:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

User report (w:ja:LTA:SLIME)

Please give a long block to User:𝒏𝒂𝒔𝒕𝒚 𝒕𝒐𝒌𝒚𝒐 and 218.148.201.113. These users undo my edits many times. These are probably w:ja:LTA:SLIME.--Nnh (talk) 04:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  Done Blocked user indef, IP 24 hours, put fig leaf (Q1401595) on my watchlist. --Emu (talk) 08:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Wiki13 (talk) 14:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Protection request for Q12182464

Please semi-protect Elham Alfedhalah (Q12182464). Frequent vandalism from several IPs. Thanks! -- Saleh (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  Done for a week, pls check the last edit--Ymblanter (talk) 18:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks @Ymblanter: please protect this page Q12219182 as well. The same reason. By our experience with these vandalism in Wikipedia Arabic, I suggest to protect the page for a month. Thank you in advance. -- Saleh (talk) 20:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  Done--Ymblanter (talk) 03:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Wiki13 (talk) 14:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Thnf

Thnf (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Account being used solely for vandalism - blanking talk pages, targeting edits of specific user, etc. 0qd (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. 0qd (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:213.94.53.130

213.94.53.130 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Mass vandalism across several pages. 0qd (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. 0qd (talk) 21:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

RfD page disruption

It looks like Ahimang's edit [18] destroyed a week's worth of deletion discussion between July 3-July 10 - recent comments were erased and already archived sections were re-added. We need to restore it but I don't think a simple revert would do since there are new edits made afterwards. What should we do? (Archives are now messed up too with duplicate logs of sections closed between July 3-July 10, but I think that is a lesser problem). whym (talk) 13:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I noticed Mahir256 fixed many entries. I restored some more. [19] I probably missed quite a few, though. (The diffs become harder to parse towards the bottom, and I encountered server errors a lot.) whym (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

User report

User:Generated~WikiBot this user not bot.And he claims to be a bot.Vedbas (talk) 04:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

IP Block for 5.178.241.23

User:5.178.241.23 uses abusive text in my address. I removed this text from my talk page. --გიო ოქრო (talk) 11:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Removal of sourced property by User:Rodrigo Padula

Hi fellows. This user is trying to disrupt a sourced property in Q30932907 item. His unconstructive behaviour forces Mahir256 to protect the page for one year. Could you help with this user, please? Thanks! --Ixocactus (talk) 02:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello everyone, the company Brasil Paralelo notified editors on Wikipedia in Portuguese due to the adjectives that some editors are using in clear political bias against the company. This company won a legal dispute against the largest TV network in Brazil for the same reasons and political bias. The editor ixocactus has been repeating the same error on Wikidata despite being warned several times of the legal threat we received. To end disputes with this company and avoid legal issues, I removed the mistaken "interests" added by ixocactus in this content, which it re-adds and reverts to frequently in this content. I reaffirm that the P1343 and Q574456 contents are not official interests and descriptions of the company's activities, they are ideological biases placed by the opposition to the company and to avoid future legal problems, this content should not be inserted or maintained there again. Ixocactus is insisting on this action and I believe it should be blocked or warned by the project administrators as several warnings and notifications have already been sent to him but he childishly insists on adding these labels to this company. Rodrigo Padula (talk) 03:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
@Rodrigo Padula: In general yielding to censorship goes against the values of the Wikimedia movement. The only reason to do so from the Wikidata perspective is if the lawyers of the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) recommend that we should remove content. The Wikimedia Foundation raises funds and fighting legal battles against censorship can be a good use of money. Of course, it's up to the legal team of the Wikimedia Foundation to decide which legal battles to fight. If you think the issue is important and we should do something, contact the WMF legal team. In general when a company notifies editors on a Wikipedia the logical response would be to refer them to the legal department. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 21:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
The problem here is not only legal, the editor is adding content improperly, not related to the areas and interests of the company, he is adding "labels" based on media coverage and comments about productions of the company, he is doing it on pt.wiki, commons and wikidata. On pt.wiki other admins are doing a complete review in the article, here ixocactus is persisting to add "negationism" and other properties as interested of the company and it is not aligned with the goals of the company as specified in the official site. Ixocactus is not only changing this content, he is fighting against my edits in many other projects and contents. It's not productive or positive for the project. Ixocactus is acting in a very partial way with political bias adding bad information to many contents, not only this one. He is not following our best practices. I'm not here deffeding the company, I'm just defeding our reputation as a impartial source of content and information. Rodrigo Padula (talk) 03:07, 7 July 2021 (UT. i C)
Content that is being added by Ixocactus is definitely appropriate, as there is a plethora of peer-reviewed, academic sources relating this company to negationism. I suggest you stop editing this page, Rodrigo Padula: I understand where you are coming from with your edits and concerns, but they are not improving the item as you are insistingly removing sourced content, and more importantly your language about a peer editor is inappropriate and is leading to a toxic environment. --Joalpe (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
@Rodrigo Padula: Reputation for not giving in to censorship threads is of high importance.
Wikidata allows for claims from different sources to be added. When there are two sources that make different claims about reality we aren't trying to find a point in the middle but we list both claims. If you think statement disputed by (P1310) claims should be added here to make it clear that there are multiple sides I'm open to adding those to show that we present both sides of the debate.
You both are trying to add your political opinions to this content, don't matter if it is pier reviewed, the P2650 property is clearly specified as "item of special or vested interest to this person or organization". So, this property must be used to specify the areas of interests of this company, products and services, negationism is not a company interest. Great part of the content published by Ixocactus on pt.wiki in the same company content was cleared and removed by other editors by the same reason. It's clear here that ixocactus is editing based on political bias, since he is left wing(the same position of you) and the company is directed linked by the brazilin press as right wing. The defamation and political bias here are very clear, the editors were warned by the company on pt.wiki and it's not related to censorship as you are trying to inform here. Rodrigo Padula (talk) 00:52, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
@Rodrigo Padula: I understand you are frustrated, but the way you talk is not helping you here. You say I have tried to add political content to this item. I have made two edits in this item ([20][21]), adding descriptive statements in French and Spanish. Could you please explain to me why you think they are "trying to add [my] political opinions to this content"? I actually do not think I have added biased content to this item, but please let me know if you think I have. Moreover, to what property do you think negationism should be added as a statement? I must say interested in (P2650) looks fine to me, per the property definition and several use cases, yet I see political ideology (P1142) was used in some cases of negationist organizations. Would that be OK? --Joalpe (talk) 14:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm not frustrated, I'm just reporting here all the problems and biased content added to this content, on pt.wiki and wikimedia commons, mainly by Ixocactus. I think that we cant mix our political preferences and thoughts with this kind off content, it always generate noise and negative impact to our movement in Brazil. So, I will not involve myself in this content, I gave some suggestions and did some edits to avoid future problems, but since Ixocactus is interested to move forward with this dispute, I can't do anything here. It's up to both of you to choose what to do here, on pt.wiki and on wikimedia commons. Rodrigo Padula (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Caux9: Vandalism and insults from a sockpuppet (Blocked on English and French Wikipedia)

Caux9 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))

Reasons:

Caux9 is a sockpuppet of :

Caux9 is already a blocked Sockpuppet on Wikipedia in English [22] and Wikipedia in French [23] and on Wikidata Caux9 is responsable of :

  • vandalism (false name) on several items : Perier family (Q101417722) and members of the Perier Family
  • aggressive and insulting language to others editors : "lâche" (coward), "escroc"(crook) [24], and "minable" (punk) [25]
  • He also use VPN IP 194.5.53.182 to hide his actions.

Thank you for your intervention, --Englwik (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Englwik's real pseudonym is Correcteur21 on the fr Wiki and Belyny on the en Wiki (see this report which proves the truth of what I say). Creator of many blocked accounts, he's very famous on the French Wikipedia. Please block him as soon as possible : his speciality is to try to force through false information that only involves him and one of his target subjects of the moment is the Perier family and its various members.
I'll let you do an IP and account analysis that will confirm this.
Thanks. --Caux9 (talk) 15:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:72.214.31.57

72.214.31.57 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: remove statement on Hermione Granger (Q174009) — eru [Talk] [french wiki] 17:09, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Semiprotected by Bovlb --Emu (talk) 23:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Emu (talk) 23:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Baby come's nominations for deletion

Hello,

I was about to leave a message on Baby come's talk page, to kindly warn him that he should not nominate items that obviously pass WD:N, such as Benoît Miribel (Q50125758). But unfortunately, it appears that some already said it several tame, but they apparently never take it in account. I'm afraid that BC has no intention to cease nominating for deletion good content. Hence, could a sysop have a look to that issue? Thanks, Nomen ad hoc (talk) 06:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC).

Also, @1Veertje, DannyS712, VIGNERON, Ari T. Benchaim: Nomen ad hoc (talk) 06:19, 9 July 2021 (UTC).
And @Wolverène: Nomen ad hoc (talk) 06:55, 9 July 2021 (UTC).
there seems to be some language barrier. Though having your deletion requests turned down time and again should really be able to come across dispite that. 1Veertje (talk) 07:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
My first idea was a partial block against Wikidata:Requests for deletions - thoughts? --DannyS712 (talk) 07:50, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
  Strong support. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Certainly Baby come sometimes overshoots the mark, but he also makes completely legitimate requests for deletion and is therefore useful in relation to the fight against self-promotion and advertising in general. That's why I wouldn't think it would be a good idea to shut him up. --Gymnicus (talk) 22:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
@Gymnicus: then what do you suggest instead? The have been requested repeatedly to be more careful and not nominate notable items. --DannyS712 (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Random suggestion (might be good or bad), can't we make an abuse-filter specific for this user and limiting them to a certain number of edits per day or week on WD:RD? Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 14:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
If we go by a abuse-filter, I wonder if we could go by blocking creation of RfD using certain identifiers (Like GND ID (P227) of VIAF ID (P214) for start) or for items who are already used. Fralambert (talk) 15:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
An abuse filter can't check the contents of the page that is being nominated. If its gotten to the point where we are talking about an abuse filter (which is run for all edits and has a small performance impact) just to throttle one user's edits then I think a block is called for. I'll note that they have continued nominating notable items for deletion **during this discussion**. Given the lack of a good alternative, the fact that this has been happening for months despite repeated warnings, and no explicit opposition to my proposal for a partial block against RFD, I'm going to do that (impose a partial block) and leave the user a message explaining my decision. --DannyS712 (talk) 21:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Restoring Q7878912

Hello, I'd like to ask if it's possible to restore the object Q7878912, which had covered the geography professor Ulf Strohmayer before it was deleted. There are three objects that could link to it (Q58043307, Q58576958, Q60374046) because he's the (co-)author of these journal articles, he has several entries in VIAF ([26]) and would easily meet the inclusion citeria in several WPs. His article was deleted in the English WP in 2015, but I've seen much less notable people covered by WD objects than him. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 10:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

And yes, I know it's no problem to start a new object about him, I just don't see why it was deleted in the first place, with no discussion and more than two years after the article was deleted in the English WP. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 10:19, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Ping @ValterVB: as deleting admin. Generally speaking, discussing deletions is an exception in Wikidata. --Emu (talk) 11:14, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
@Axolotl Nr.733: Undeleted per criterion 3 (structural need), although there's also an argument for criterion 2 (identifiers and sources). For future reference, it is a problem to start a new item for a deleted item. Much better to do what you did and request undeletion here. Bovlb (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 20:14, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing in Israel-related items

User أمين is constantly removing mention of Israel from many items associated with the country: Ein Gedi (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6), Great Omari Mosque of Lod (1), Hasbani River (1). On Commons, he renamed a category about an Israeli river from its most common Hebrew name to a lesser known Arabic name: link. These are just a few of the more recent examples I came across. He's clearly biased against Israel and is trying to erase the mention of it everywhere. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 15:47, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Triggerhippie4, False and incorrect allegations because I do not change anything until I verify it
You mentioned one mistake, and I tell you that I made a mistake. It is about Ain Gedi, where when I looked at the map, I found it within the territory of the Palestinian Authority, but you could have alerted me, opened a discussion, and guided me.
Regarding Commons, the river has a well-known name, in Arab countries and international, and you can find in this country, all of the old cities names in Arabic like Jafa, Acre and Hafia and you can refer to the history books and check what the river name is? أمين (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
@أمين: "Yarkon River" 90,700 results vs. "al-Auja River" 376 results. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
I have no idea about this river but I know that when you use a Latin alphabet search you do not get results from other alphabets. BTW, the attitude shown by the user above clearly shows s/he is not a person to be taken to any sanctions board. --E4024 (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet cross wiki

Hello, a conflict concerning the Perier family on wp:fr extends to Wikidata and wp:en, with the use of sockpuppets concerning two contributors blocked and banned Correcteur21 vs Savary34/Caux9. The two seek to block the other in a previous request.

Last blocked group includes an active account on Wikidata : Datacheck5 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)), using 178.209.32.0/19 and 104.145.239.0/24 (usually in Canada), especially on :

  1. Famille de Perier
  2. Étienne Perier
  3. Antoine Alexis Perier

These articles are the subject of suit war between two accounts... Englwik (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) vs. Caux9 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)). To which to add this ip 2603:8001:9f00:77e7:df6:1887:69f3:a438 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))

Thanks for your intervention. Provide can be the protection of the pages concerned. --B-noa (talk) 11:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd second this request for intervention to end the edit warring. Tcr25 (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
I'd also note they've both filed (improperly) checkuser requests at Wikidata:Requests for checkuser/Case/ (instead of on subpages of that page). Tcr25 (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Barrow1965‎‎ : Edit warring and insults from a sockpuppet (Blocked indefinitely on English for sockpupettry, disruptive editing and edit-warring)

This is related with Q5363240), the item about actress Elizabeth Morgan This user, have claimed to be or know someone and so entered in a scheme of manipulation and lying.

He is already indefinitely blocked in the english wikipedia for blocked in the english wikipedia for "(Disruptive editing, edit-warring, socking with IPs)", and is trying, for days and almost a hundred edits and reverts to change in all languages from "british actress" to "welsh actress", claiming that "I have spoken to her on Zoom and she TOLD ME that she DOESNT WANT TO BE IDENTIFIED AS BRITISH BUT AS WELSH" or that he had spoken to her as said in"I did! I am friends with her on Zoom.", so claiming falsely to know her to justify this action.

I explained that she defines herself as "I am a Republican. One of the old fashioned British Republican kind, before we had knickerbocker glories prancing in splendid palaces, whom we as a nation support with lots of cake thrown in.", i.e. british. and that sources have to be published and reliable, not someone claiming to know her. In his talkpage and edits history

He admmited to have lied about knowing her, albeit he latter changed again to say that he knows her.

Forgetting his change of opinion about british and scotish\english\northern irish\welsh, as can be seen in his english wikipedia talkpage and also in wikidata, his behaviour changed and now trying to justify his actions with saying that My dad once told me "It's OK to call the Northern Irish "Northern Irish, it's OK to call the Scots "Scottish", it's OK to call the Welsh "Welsh" but it's not OK to call the English "English. They must be called "British"., saying "It's just my philosophy".

Please protect this page from more disruptive and manipulative edicts from this user. Tm (talk) 18:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

  Done Protected for a day (edit-warring). @Barrow1965: Please provide a good reason why the description should read “Welsh actress”. --Emu (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Oversight deletion thingie, please

Not sure the owner of the phone number wishes it on WD - diff --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon: as a reminder, it says at the top If you are a user who has a request for removal of non-public personal information, please note that details should not be posted in public. Email oversight wikidata.org or a local oversighter privately. In the future, please try to remember this. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Tagishsimon (talk) 13:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Concurrent QuickStatements batches

Hello. Because I found Wikidata very slow today, I checked Special:RecentChanges. I see that User:MdsShakil has at least four running QuickStatements batches: 59373, 59374, 59376, 59377. Is there a policy that limits the number of active QuickStatements batches per user? Cheers, Envlh (talk) 07:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Envlh: I don't think there is any limit to the batch. A typical user cannot edit more than the specified limit per minute so batch number is not a big factor. Even then, according to your comment, I am running one batch. Regards MdsShakil (talk) 08:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
@MdsShakil: Thank you, and sorry to have bothered you! If I understand correctly, the rate limit is now enforced by the software itself. I was unable to find documentation about that on Wikidata. Does anyone know where I can find some? Maybe the question should be asked in WD:DEV? Cheers, Envlh (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
All regular users including bots are limited to 90 edits per minute. Only admin accounts are still not ratelimited, which is why admins should not run concurrent QuickStatements batches (although a single batch by an admin account can run at hundreds of edits per minute anyways).
Current limits can, as much as I understand, be read from this MediaWiki config file—but one needs to have some thorough understanding of the underlying mechanisms. —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
(To avoid the need to search too long, here are links within the file to the edit limit for regular users and the rate limit exemption for administrators.) Mahir256 (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Is is essentially impossible for administrators to use QuickStatements in a way that doesn't cause lag. Best approach seems to be to use an alternative account. Bovlb (talk) 18:13, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning 90.187.219.25

90.187.219.25 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) is currently vandalizing a number of pages, replacing portraits with images of penises etc. --Hjart (talk) 08:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

  Done Blocked 31 hours. Lymantria (talk) 10:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:K1Ahmadi0990

K1Ahmadi0990 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: changing descriptions to bogus things regarding England , israel, bab, and Islam bahaei Baratiiman (talk) 07:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Request for semi-protection of Doge (Q15613810)

Vandalism--Trade (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  Done Protected for another three months after a previous two weeks protect by User:MisterSynergy --Emu (talk) 23:53, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 07:53, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Harry-es-puto

Harry-es-puto (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Offensive username + vandalism Valdemar2018 (talk) 03:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Done. —Hasley+ 03:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 07:53, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Rasmus Larsson

Dear admins (and other colleagues), please keep an eye on the edits of User:Rasmus Larsson. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Added a warning on the user’s talk page, added the three items they edited to my watchlist. --Emu (talk) 10:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Emu (talk) 10:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary edits

I am not of the opinion that bringing here differences of opinion is correct. No, for me we should only bring here vandalism. However, if I have just (only about a day or two ago, in another case) tried to be reasonable and worked hard to convince the same user to respect sources and my efforts have been futile, then I will legitimately bring the other cases here. It is about Lütfi Arıboğan (Q3841124) and User:Henrymorgan92. As you may see, he changed the name to Lutfi without providing sources. I will not bring here my sources. Making any search in "Turkish language" shows the correct name. BTW, the person himself uses Lütfi in their social media. (I have seen many cases of Turkish people using in their social media names without the "rare" letters of Turkish like ü or ö or ğ, but never saw someone who is turning u into ü!) I tried to teach this user the importance of sources, in vain. I hope something is done to stop them (I am too tired to cope with this) before they change other people's names arbitrarily, as this is the second case in some 25-30 hours... --E4024 (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I provided sources for both. I added the sources for Lutfi Arıboğan to Turkish Wikipedia, but forgot the Wikidata. I just added to Wikidata too. --Henrymorgan92 (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Please make a list of the sources which use Lütfi that you chose to ignore and also tell Mr Lütfi Arıboğan to correct their own name in their own social media also. --E4024 (talk) 16:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

  Done There are sources for Lutfi in the Wikidata item. There have been no objections to the changes on the talk pages of the EN, FR and TR articles. I see no evidence of vandalism, socks or serious edit wars. I don’t see how this is a problem that needs an administrator.

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Emu (talk) 10:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Well, if FIBA has used Lütfi in its English-language website, Mr Lütfi Arıboğan may feel good that at least there is some good database with correct data about his name. I also feel good enough that I did whatever I could trying to keep people away from making arbitrary edits. I am not one of those people who follow users and try to get them blocked. I follow only "issues", like WD items in this case. I want them to be closer to perfect. Now I wonder when this user will go to Italian WP to impose their own preference about Mr Lütfi Arıboğan's article... --E4024 (talk) 16:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Jill Valentine (Q840368)

Ongoing unreasonable removals of LTA account. Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 02:49, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  Done semi-protect for a month --Emu (talk) 10:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Emu (talk) 10:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

My user page

Please, delete my user page. ——Chalk19 (talk) 07:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  Done --DannyS712 (talk) 07:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 07:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:LOL_and_ML_vs_itself

LOL_and_ML_vs_itself (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism only account, xwiki disruption Firefly (talk) 08:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Emu (talk) 10:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Editing War

Please intervene and stop the war on the pages related to Moldova and the Moldovan language: Moldovan (Q36392), Regulamentul Organic (Q2029991), Principality of Moldavia (Q10957559), Chronicles of the Land of Moldavia (Q29010415), Stephen III of Moldavia (Q218134). User:Super Dromaeosaurus, based on the fact that now in Moldova many politicians have equated the Moldavian language with Romanian, believes that all historical references to the Moldovan language should be replaced with modern Romanian. And also some other non-consensual edits. I ask you to fix the consensus version and temporarily restrict the editing of these pages. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 12:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Лобачев Владимир is an editor who doesn't listen and will always go back to edit warring no matter how many sources they are brought, they come back a few weeks later. This has been discussed to death, and everyone is tired of this: [27] [28]. This user does not understand the fact that there are sources outside from Russia, and no matter how many sources they bring that refute them, they will just ignore them and fact as if never had nothing happened. Any administrative measure in the benefit of this user will be a huge error. I will elaborate as much as I am asked, and I can bring more users to the table that will give more insights in the behaviour of this user. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:41, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Actually, you know what? I am bringing these users: Rgvis and Pofka, I am sorry that you have to be brought here again but this user does not pretend to stop. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:45, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
By the way, I'll show the most pure case of disruption from this user. I moved the English Wikipedia page Moldovan schools in Transnistria to Romanian-language schools in Transnistria. The justification is that in Transnistria (a separatist region of the Republic of Moldova), the Romanian language is called "Moldovan" and anything Romanian is repressed (doubt my claims? I can provide sources). Some Romanians are still holding on and have a few schools in the state. They themselves say their language is Romanian, not Moldovan. But this user opposed my claims, three times, because they refuse to admit there is anything Romanian and not Moldovan in Transnistria. They re-moved the page back three times. I in the end had to write a huge wall of text together with an user pinged above (Rgvis) to manage to justify my move [29]. In the end this user gave up on Wikipedia, but they still kept pushing their POV in Wikidata even after they stopped replying to my wall of text with sources on Wikipedia! [30] (citing lazy excuses such as "cons[ensus]"). In the end I had to again write a column of text on Wikidata for a second time to justify my changes [31]. This is the modus operandi of Лобачев Владимир: resist for as long as possible, then ignore anything happened when refuted and go back to resisting changes. One has to have a huge patience and must like writing quite a lot to be able to completly refute this user, which are skills I don't have. And this is only one example. I could show plenty. This issue has been going on for months, I ask for any administrator to be actually willing to go deep down into this or not intervene. A temporary block of both won't do anything. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I think I understand how frustrating these discussions can be. Also it’s important to know the broader context of this conflict. However, I’m not sure if we need all this context to end edit wars on Wikidata (without one side just giving up.) --Emu (talk) 14:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Лобачев Владимир, Super Dromaeosaurus: I don’t pretend to understand the whole conflict but I do have to say that I’m a little irritated that I don’t see many references for most claims from either side. If a claim has been made by a reputable source, it should stay in Wikidata even if it is wrong. If it’s wrong, a deprecated rank with an appropriate reason for deprecated rank (P2241) should be set. Could you at least try to halt your edit war and try to insert proper references (private interpretations of one document or another on talk pages might not be enough)? That would be a good place to start to find common ground (or at least allow neutral users to assess the best obtainable version of the truth). --Emu (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear: I mean proper Wikidata references. I understand that both side use a mixture of edit comments and talk pages (sometimes from other projects) and tacit knowledge. That isn’t really helping users that aren’t experts. --Emu (talk) 13:29, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
I have long opposed many changes made by this user based on that they use many Russian sources. I really don't think it's a good idea to allow this, in this case I could bring sources from Romania and an edit war about which sources are right would start. I've always told this user to search sources from outside, not from the region, but that never worked. And I will clarify, for non-experts, that no Russian source will say Romanian is spoken in Moldova and no Romanian source will say Moldovan is spoken in Moldova. This is why I reject Russian AND Romanian sources (being a Romanian myself). And to clarify again, the vast majority of sources from outside don't separate Moldovan and Romanian, they might mention Moldovan (usually like this: "Moldovan/Romanian") just to avoid controversy from a topic they may not know much about but not state Moldovan and Romanian are different. Perhaps this is why this user sticks to Russian sources. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Allowing only (more or less) independent and neutral sources would indeed be a good idea for most Wikipedia language editions. It’s not really the way Wikidata works – we also record claims that are outdated, biased or found to be wrong as long as a reputable source exists. They are then deprecated if found to have serious flaws. --Emu (talk)
Do you have any example? I want to see how does such thing look like. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Different case, but Q85002#P569 might serve as a sample of how to do it from a technical standpoint. --Emu (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
I see. I don't know if I agree with this but if this is the way it is done in Wikidata, so be it. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 15:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Again, the conversation boils down to the fact that the user Лобачев Владимир (Vladimir Lobachev) is bad, and all Russian sources are bad. Conversely, user Super Dromaeosaurus is good and all of his sources are good. And let's call participants who will support us. This is a non-constructive aggressive approach leading to further war. I suggest entering any information based on sources, even if it seems incorrect to us. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't have the will to waste much time into this. With more people, it's easier. If you haven't found other editors agreeing with your stance, that's not my problem. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
I see that you are not disposed to find consensus, but to get more participants here who support your point of view. And, consequently, to forcefully push through their point of view. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
If such was the case, I wouldn't bother on replying here. By the way, asking administrators to restore your revisions (which as usual you claim to be "consensus") and then protecting the items doesn't seem like a way of attempting to find consensus either. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 17:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Please define good references. I will bring Romanian sources if this user brings Russian ones and the conflict will just continue. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Good references are references from a trustworthy, ideally academic source. Maybe the conflict will continue (when deciding about preferred and deprecated ranks) but Wikidata will be better off anyway. --Emu (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
I still don't agree with the use of sources from countries with bias regarding the topic. But we could attempt to get a satisfactory solution at one item first to see how it works out. Do you have any suggestion, Vladimir? Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 15:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
It seems to me that the quality of the sources is determined not by the country, but by the author, who is a specialist in this area, and the authority of the publishing house. Even in fascist Germany and in communist China there are very high-quality scientific works. Conversely, even in the UK or France, there are many poor quality sources. Quality is not determined by country, language or ethnicity. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Don't forget the thing we've been discussing about is the national identity and language of the Moldovans. That's a more sensitive topic and not a random uncontroversial one. If we argued about WWII battles in modern Moldova, just to put a random example, both Romanian and Russian sources would be welcome and valid. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 17:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

  Comment : user Лобачев Владимир is obviously part of the Russian web brigades and should be globally, permanently blocked to avoid further disruption in other countries articles and related pages. All he does everyday in Wikipedia and Wikipedia-related projects is attempting to rewrite everything according to the Russian POV (which is false due to the Propaganda in the Russian Federation, Propaganda in the Soviet Union). Лобачев Владимир's only mission here is rewrite the history, symbols and other things of (mostly) post-Soviet states in the way the Russian sources presents them, thus his edits are totally incompatible with the most important Wikipedia:Assume good faith principle and his disruptive edits cannot be tolerated. He has been editing in Wikipedia's projects in a disruptive way for years and is constantly fighting edit wars with users who do not agree with his propaganda (it is usual for him to aggressively perform ~10 reverts in succession and this way attempt to defend his false statements). For his disruptive actions, he has been recently placed under the discretionary sanctions in English Wikipedia (message by an administrator in his talk page). I collected and presented evidence about his disruptive actions in English Wikipedia in this report here: LINK (it was rejected by the committee, but following it administrators from the Wikipedia:Arbitration has placed him under the discretionary sanctions). Seeing that he still doesn't care, blocking him permanently and globally is simply inevitable because he will not stop peacefully as he does not seek to improve the content and is only systematically presenting his/Russian POV in non-Russian topics and is likely getting paid for his disruptive actions (see article Russian web brigades). In the report mentioned previously you can easily find information that he is known for writing humiliating, chauvinistic statements about other countries (e.g. Lithuania, Lithuanian and Romanian languages) and performing such disruptive edits. I also myself encountered Лобачев Владимир's disruptive editing in Wikidata page Grand Duchy of Lithuania when he attempted to present inaccurate historical flag of Lithuania (not supported by any Lithuanian sources) from a Russian/Belarusian source (his disruptive edits: 1, 2) and failed to provide any non-Russian/non-Belarusian source supporting his disruptive edits (see: Talk:Q96754462). I request to finally block him and this way end his constant chaos. Ping administrators who noticed his disruptive actions previously: @Barkeep49:, @RandomCanadian: and other users who likely encountered his disruptive edits as well (I saw them participating in various discussions with him): @Ke an:, @Itzhak Rosenberg:. Pofka (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

  Comment : I 100% agree with Pofka, Лобачев Владимир is a problematic user that should be banned forever. As Pofka has shown, this user repeatedly attacks articles about Lithuania, and as Super Dromaeosaurus' examples demonstrate, Лобачев Владимир pushes Russian propaganda which basically negates that Moldova is in any way Romanian, but instead Moldovan, ergo negating that there are Romanian schools in Transnistria and trying to present them as "Moldovan". I appeal to all administrators to enforce serious sanctions on Лобачев Владимир, because he has not demonstrated any will to change his problematic behaviour time and time again. So far, the sanctions for his behaviour have been underwhelming and insufficient to make him improve his behaviour. The only solution to this edit war is banning Лобачев Владимир for an unlimited time period.--Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 12:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Stephen III of Moldavia (Q218134). Coat of arms

  •  
    Allegedly colored coat of arms of Stephen III of Moldavia of the 16th century
  •  
    The symbol of Moldova on the coat of arms of Romania
  •  
    Drawing of Stefan's seal
  •  
    Drawing of the coat of arms with the seal of Stefan

The article indicates the color coat of arms of the 16th century, which was created on the basis of the coat of arms of Romania of the 20th century. Please indicate the sources confirming the presence of such a coat of arms at Stephen III of Moldavia are not given. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

So the question is if Stephen indeed used the version in red and yellow? And the question is if this version was indeed used by Stephen (as it was afterwards)? I agree, it would be nice if a source could be provided – ideally with a object stated in reference as (P5997) text segment to make it easier for people like me who don’t speak Romanian. @Super Dromaeosaurus, Rgvis: I know that it’s tiresome and you discussed this like a million times, but could you maybe point us to the appropriate document that mentions the colored version as the version Stephen used? --Emu (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I will in a short time, but keep in mind Лобачев Владимир does not dispute the fourth CoA he listed, and it's highly similar to the first one, so this issue is only about the coloring, which makes it easier for me/us. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, so I gather. I have just skimmed your sources and I just found a reference for 1599 (well before Stephen) but then of course I might have overlooked it. --Emu (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
As users here are not opposed to Romanian sources, here are some. I am actually just copying what Rgvis showed before, mainly because I am lazy to search for more. Here's his original message, with more sources: [32].
  • Ce a căutat capul de bour pe steagul Moldovei şi ce reprezenta culoarea roşie a drapelului (from Adevărul, a prominent Romanian newspaper, everyone in Romania knows it): În timpul domniei lui Ştefan cel Mare, steagul era roşu, având un cap de bour galben cu o stea între coarne, soarele în dreapta şi luna în stânga. ("During the reign of Stephen the Great, the flag was red, with a yellow ox [actually an auroch] head with a star between its horns, the sun on the right and the moon on the left.")
  • Drapelul României (website of the Romanian presidency): Şi steagul Moldovei, în perioada domniei lui Ştefan cel Mare, era tot roşu, având capul de bour cu stea între coarne şi flancat de soare şi lună. ("And the flag of Moldavia, during the reign of Stephen the Great, was also red, with a bull's head with a star between its horns and flanked by the sun and moon."). I think there's no reference to the auroch being yellow here.
  • O istorie a Drapelului României (from the Nicolae Bălcescu Ground Forces Academy): Culoarea de bază a steagului Moldovei este, în general, roşu [...]. ("The basic color of the Moldavian flag is generally red"). Şi steagul Moldovei, în perioada domniei lui Ştefan cel Mare, era tot roşu, având capul de bour cu stea între coarne şi flancat de soare şi lună. ("And the flag of Moldavia, during the reign of Stephen the Great, was also red, with a bull's head with a star between its horns and flanked by the sun and moon."). Again no reference with the auroch's color.
Here's something from myself:
By the way, I know it's a long discussion, but I really recommend reading Rgvis' comments at Talk:Flag and coat of arms of Moldavia, he makes the strongest points (which Лобачев Владимир subtly ignored...). Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:01, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
I have to say, I’m not totally convinced. Your reasoning seems to be that according to several sources the flag might have been red (and yellow), therefore the (personal) coat of arms of Stephen had to be red and yellow. That’s quite a lot of conjecture. Contrast this with the (sourced) information on w:en:Stephen_the_Great#Arms that the tincture is unknown and the fact that not even w:ro:Ștefan cel Mare shows the version you prefer. I’m not saying that you aren’t right (you very well may be) but I’m not exactly sure if a modern interpretation of a coat of arms with a tincture that is based on conjecture and needs a long explanation is the best idea for Wikidata. --Emu (talk) 23:46, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Alright, I see that the coloring might not be clear, although I don't understand what do you mean with conjectures as the sources I sent do state that the coat of arms of Moldavia during Stephen the Great's rule had a red background and a yellow auroch. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 07:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
I am struggling to find further sources for this as even though I am Romanian, I am from the diaspora and I never fully learnt Romanian, so it's hard for me to read through long academic papers with many pages. I prefer someone with better knowledge of Romanian to respond here, and if that doesn't happen I'll just leave the CoA issue. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 07:43, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it’s about the coloring (“tinctures”). It is my understanding that even if we knew for sure the correct colors of the flag, this wouldn’t automatically mean that we know for sure if Stephen used the same colors in his “personal” coat of arms. --Emu (talk) 07:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
The discussion is actually about the state flag of Moldavia during Stephen's rule, not about Stephen's personal coat of arms. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 09:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Well, Stephen III of Moldavia (Q218134) is in the headline and it’s about this question. --Emu (talk) 12:08, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
My bad then, there was a long dispute in English Wikipedia regarding Moldavia's state flag and I guess I had just assumed without reading too much this was about the same. I don't mind if Vladimir's version is restored in that item. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:41, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  Done. Please note that the claim Stephen III of Moldavia (Q218134)native language (P103)Romanian (Q7913) is missing a reference. I couldn’t find information on his native language on Wikipedia but I prima facie consider this claim at least plausible. I would advise 1) to add a reference for this claim in the near future (User:Super Dromaeosaurus) and 2) not to delete this claim in the meantime (User:Лобачев Владимир ). --Emu (talk) 13:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
I added a newspaper article from Adevărul giving an analysis to what language could Stephen have spoken (ethnic point of view) and what language could have he thought he spoke (national identity point of view). Do I search for a more academic source? Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Principality of Moldavia (Q10957559). Official language

The Moldavian principality had the Constitution of 1831 Regulamentul Organic (Q2029991), which indicated the language of the country. Administrators are asked to comment on the discussion – Talk:Q10957559#Moldovan language. Can the Constitution be the document that establishes the language of the country? --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 18:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Let’s see if I get this right:
  1. The Regulamentul Organic mentions limba moldovenească and limba rumînească in the context of schooling.
  2. The EN, RO and DE Wikipedias don’t mention any form of official language neither in the Regulamentul Organic articles nor in the articles about the countries.
  3. The RU Wikipedia states that the Moldovan language was the official language (официальным языком) because of the Regulamentul Organic. It’s backed with an article by Grosul Vladislav. His reasoning seems to be directly linked to his interpretation of the meaning of section 340.
  4. It’s disputed what limba moldovenească means in that context – but do I understand correctly that it’s about terminology, not necessarily the nature of the language itself? EN, DE and even RU (and RO with a different style) Wikipedias seem to agree that the majority of linguists agree that Moldovan and Romanian are the same language.
  5. There is some disagreement about wether it’s an anachronism to use the term “Moldovan language” for events pre-1924. The RU Wikipedia seems to say no. The Wikidata item Moldovan (Q36392) is somewhat ambiguous.
Did I understand the situation correctly? --Emu (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
@Emu: As far as I understand, it is just a RUSSIAN constitution/document of Moldavia (which was a non-Russian monarchy in the past and currently is an independent state called Moldova). Eagle with a crown on the title page of this constitution, put in force by foreign occupiers, clearly show that it belongs to the Russian Empire and is not Moldavian. Sources of various occupiers obviously do not comply with the Wikipedia:Reliable sources rule in the respective countries articles and their related pages. User Лобачев Владимир's pro-Russian chauvinistic propaganda in Moldovan topics is clearly related with the Transnistria War and Transnistria (these are heavily supported by the Russian propaganda and Russian web brigades). Please finally block this disruptive user and stop his propaganda, baseless edit wars in Wikipedia's projects. Pofka (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, you've gotten it right, specially the 5th point. I want to clarify in the first point that Wallachia is in Romanian Țara Românească, the term Wallachia is foreign. The Regulamentul Organic simply used the names of the principalities to determine the language of the principality, in order to leave clear Greek had no more status I suspect (the principalities had just gotten out of the so-called Phanariote era, in which the rulers were Greeks from Constantinople put by the Ottoman authorities as the Romanian ones were too unloyal). But this is original research of myself. What I am sure about though is that, had the principalities been Moldavia and Transylvania and not Wallachia, the document would have stated their languages were "Moldavian" and "Transylvanian". It is just a... coincidence we could say that the documents used rumînească and moldovenească as if the languages were different. And Pofka is right, the Regulamentul Organic was adopted under the Russian occupation of both principalities. I also note the Russian Wikipedia states so becuase Лобачев Владимир added it to the article (which may also raise the question as to if I did remove it from the article, but I didn't except when this user tried to extend this into the English Wikipedia, before us two it had never stated so). For the 4th point: yes, pretty much about terminology and about if Regulamentul Organic's Moldavian = Soviet invention Moldovan.
I clarify that most of the times I discussed with Vladimir about stuff related to the Regulamentul Organic, I asked for sources linking the Moldavian language the document referred to with the Moldovan that was created in 1924 in the USSR and that is still existing today. And this user will also usually state that Moldovan and Romanian (or "Wallachian") are related but different languages. This is not true, they are highly similar, only differing in some vocabulary and a bit of pronunciation, but they are 99% mutually intelligible, like all other Romanian dialects. The Romanian language is so centralized that the Romanian from Moldova is not even considered its own dialect or subdialect or anything, it just forms part of the Moldavian dialect also spoken in the northeastern part of Moldova. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Лобачев Владимир: Amintim, că deja în primul Cod de legi al Țării Moldovei, promulgat de domnitorul Vasile Lupu în 1646 și editat la Iași, chiar pe copertă era menționat că acest monument de drept al Principatului a fost elaborat în limba românească cu titlul: Carte românească de învățătură de la Pravilele împărătești și de la alte giudeațe cu dzisa și cu toată cheltuiala lui Vasilie Voievodul și Domnul Țării Moldovei di în multe scripturi tălmăcite di în limba ilenească pre limba românească, editată la Iași în 1646 [6; foto 1,2]. Cartea românească de învățătură din 1646 prin unele fragmente incluse în Prefață a limpezit în mare măsură conceptul că locuitorii Moldovei erau români în aspect etnic și că vorbeau limba română. Ne referim la acele pasaje, în care logofătul Eustratie preciza că a tălmăcit pravilele „den scrisoare grecească pre limba românească ca să poată înțelege toți”. Prin aceste rânduri cărturarul jurist, refl ectând realitatea obiectivă, constata că în anii ’40 ai secolului al XVII-lea locuitorii Principatului Moldova vorbeau în limba românească.
Translation:
"We remind that already in the first Code of Laws of the Principality of Moldavia, promulgated by the ruler Vasile Lupu in 1646 and published in Iasi, right on the cover it was mentioned that this monument of law of the Principality was elaborated in Romanian with the title: Romanian learning textbook (Carte românească de învățătură) from the Imperial Rules and from other judgments with dzisa (I don't know what's that) and at all the expense of Voivode Vasile and the Lord of the Principality of Moldavia in many scriptures interpreted in the Illyrian (Slavic, [33]) language before the Romanian language, published in Iași in 1646. The Romanian textbook from 1646, through some fragments included in the Preface, clarified to a large extent the concept that the inhabitants of Moldavia were Romanian in ethnic aspect and that they spoke Romanian. We refer to those passages, in which the logopath Eustratie specified that he interpreted the rules "from the Greek letter to the Romanian language so that everyone can understand" [7]. Through these lines, the legal scholar, reflecting the objective reality, found that in the 1940s the inhabitants of the Principality of Moldova spoke Romanian."
LIMBA MOLDOVENEASCĂ SAU LIMBA ROMÂNĂ: ARGUMENTE ISTORICO-JURIDICE, pages 19-20. Link to Cartea românească de învățătură's Wikipedia page in Romanian. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 07:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Carving a Moldavian identity out of history (author is Dutch or German I believe, not from Romania/Moldova/Russia, so they don't have a reason to be biased towards one point): "In sum, before the October Revolution the inhabitants of Bessarabia probably considered themselves "Moldavians" in a natural, primarily local-territorial sense. A politically constructed Moldavian national myth did not exist. Neither the tsarist administration nor Russian academic circles made a consistent effort to provide the Bessarabian population with a national identity, an ethnogenesis, or a national history of its own." "In Bessarabia only a small group of intellectuals was aware of the Romanian nationbuilding process. The backward and predominantly rural population between the Prut and Dnestr Rivers had only a local consciousness. They had no mature national identity, and they identified themselves as "Moldavians" only in a territorial, non-ethnic sense." "The Russian government was aware of the Romanian-ness of its Bessarabian citizens, but it did not try consistently to influence the local nationbuilding process in another direction by designating them as "Moldavians." "Some official documents and scholarly studies of the late nineteenth century refer to the Bessarabians as "Romanians," others as 'Moldavians'". "In 1891 a Russian encyclopedia [...] referred to the Bessarabians as "Moldavians" but added the alternative "Romanians" in brackets." "The Moldavian myth —that the Moldavian nation is distinct from the Romanian nation in terms of ethnogenesis, language, culture and history— was created by Soviet communists in the interwar period. Since the Second World War, politicians, propagandists and scholars in Chisinau have presented several versions of the myth. The basic principle, however, remained the same."
Vladimir, do you have any source showing Moldavians and Romanians were regarded as different during the times of the Principality of Moldavia? Any source showing the Moldavian language and the one spoken in Wallachia and Transylvania are or were different at some point? Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 08:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

One possibility might be to add:

official language
  Moldovan edit
reason for deprecated rank cannot be confirmed by other sources


add value

--Emu (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

What happens when a parameter is shown as deprecated? I imagine it won't show up in other Wikimedia projects as in here, but is that it? Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I want to say that I expect some serious measures to be taken here. I don't want to write columns of text only to gain "victory" on a few items and then see myself edit-warring with Vladimir once again some weeks later in other items. I'd be happy to see the administrators here analyzing this situation carefully and taking proper action to finally end this. Emu is aleady doing good, better than any other of the administrators anywhere that have intervened on the 5–6 reports in which the 4 main parties here (me, Vladimir and the two users I pinged) have been involved in some way or another, but it might be too much for one single person, so I please ask other administrators to read this thing and cooperate to make a final, solid and long-lasting solution. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment My only interaction in this was giving my 2c about some dubious ArbCom case filings. This is first and foremost a Wikipedia dispute. Editors should head back there, and try to resolve their differences. If they're not able to, and if we keep getting this kind of massive overreaction and pursuit of disputes off-wiki, that might be grounds for a topic ban. For all major parties. But that's a Wikipedia issue, no need to hash it out here. As for the whole Moldovan/Romanian language issue: Wikipedia (and, I assume, by extension, Wikidata) has an entirely justified academic bias. If what I'm reading is correct, linguists and other competent experts agree that the difference between these two are not significant: at the very most, they're dialects of the same language. Wikidata should probably reflect that same status, in whichever way the regulars here deem it most appropriate ("Moldovan" should very likely be a separate entry identified as either "Alternative name for Romanian" or "Dialect of Romanian spoken in Moldovia" - compare with the way it is done [Eastern-European national issues not present] with standard French and Canadian French). RandomCanadian (talk) 03:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
I want to note me and Vladimir have mostly intercated here on Wikidata precisely, take a look at our contributions [34] [35]. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 06:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

after the first 43 kilobytes of discussion

It seems there is some sort of agreement for the first two of many points of discussion (personal coat of arms of Stephen the Great; official language of the Regulamentul Organic Principality of Moldavia (Q10957559)). There is also a reminder that the native language of Stephen the Great should have a reference. After 43 kilobytes of discussion I would urge all parties:

  1. to stick to the point and be brief,
  2. to continue to discuss the points once brought up (especially by oneself) and answer questions that were asked,
  3. to accept the fact that this is not the place to litigate problems from other projects, and
  4. to accept the fact that administrators are volunteers, can’t be summoned at will and have a very narrowly defined role (see WD:A). Administrators especially can’t decide what’s true and what’s false.

If anyone wants to change the status quo of the items in question (or other related items), please explain briefly 1) why it should be changed and 2) what references you intend to bring up. --Emu (talk) 14:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

3) In which language was the Regulamentul Organic published?

  •  
    Moldavian Regulamentul Organic
  •  
    Wallachian Regulamentul organic

@Emu: There are two Regulamentul Organic of the Danube principalities: one for Moldavia and the other for Wallachia. In Moldavian, the official language is Moldavian, and in Wallachian, the language is Romanian. Therefore, I do not understand how the language of the Wallachian principality became the language of the Moldavian principality, contrary to the Constitution (Regulamentul Organic).

In the Moldovan Regulamentul Organic article 421 stipulated: “The course of all teachings will be in the Moldovan language, not only for the facilitation of the sholerars and the cultivation of the language and the homeland, but also for the word that all public causes must be traced in this language, which the varnishers use in church holidays” (source). Please clarify. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we have already established that both limba moldovenească and limba rumînească are mentioned in said document. The problem is that terminology is one thing and concepts are another thing.
Just to be sure: Do you agree that the whole of the Regulamentul Organic is written in the same language? --Emu (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
I have no original documents. But I see that the titles of the documents are written differently
Mo: РEГЛЕМЕNТꙋЛ OРГANIК
Ro: РЕГUЛАМENТUЛ ОРГАNIК
The documents also indicate the different languages of the states. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree that the article should indicate two languages, for two documents at once. For Wallachia - Romanian, for Moldavia - Moldavian. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 15:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
The transliteration of the document's version from Moldavia, Reglementul Organic, is reglement (-ul means "the"). This word is stated to be by the Dicționarul explicativ al limbii române (DEX, the top dictionary of the Romanian language) an obsolete word coming from the French and German languages, in which the word is réglement/reglement. It is known Romanian adopted many French words, there's an article for this [36], and a standard form of Romanian was still being formed, so it is not weird several words had several ways to be written. If reglement had never been a word of the Romanian language, it would not be part of the DEX. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I’m not so sure about the validity of either of your arguments. But as I have already said: Terminology is one thing, concepts another. Linking in Wikidata works with concepts. The Wikipedia articles that are linked from Moldovan (Q36392) seem to describe mostly the term as used in the last 100 years with some historical background. I doubt it can properly be used for pre-1924 situations (note that I’m only discussing the concept as Wikidata seems to use it at the moment, not the term itself).

The concept of the language itself (and it’s generally agreed upon that there is only one language) seems to be Wikidata item Romanian (Q7913). This is probably the proper form. But it might be useful to model how the document itself seems to call the language it is written in:

language of work or name
  Romanian edit
object named as limba moldovenească
object named as limba rumînească
0 references
add reference


add value

Of course, one might ask if the drafters of the Reglementul Organic had two languages in mind and if so, set out to model the two in Wikidata. I would strongly advise against doing that without good reasons and a lot of modeling knowledge. Also, I found no research into this topic (but then again I didn’t look that hard.)

Note that this is not a ruling as an administrator but rather my understanding of the modeling requirements here. Other users may indeed have different opinions. --Emu (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I am in favor of this solution. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Another sources:

From the 14th to the 16th centuries the Slavic languag dominated in the Moldavian principality . In the 17th century however , it was replaced by the Moldavian language whic was the spoken language of the population as a whole. (G. Stoĭlik Moldavia, 1987, p. 10)

The Moldavian language was formed on the basis of the language spoken by the Vlach population . Taking shape in the course of contacts between the Vlachs and the Eastern Slavs , the Moldavian language , having assimilated a large number of Slavic elements , acquired the distinctive phonetic , morphological and syntactical features.(The Current Digest of the Soviet Press. American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies. 1982, p. 10)

Art. 421. _ Cursul tuturor îmvățăturilor va fi în moldovenęască, nu numai pentru înlesnirea sholerilor cultevirea limbii şi patriei, ce încă pentru cuvântul că toate pricinile publice trebue să se tractarisască în a-ceastă limbă, pe care lăcuitorii o întrebuințază în sărbările bisericeşti. (Regulamentele organice ale Valahiei si Moldovei din 1831-1832, București, 1944)

--Лобачев Владимир (talk) 12:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I don’t see how this is relevant in light of what I have written above. If you have a source that explicitly says that the Regulamentul Organic was written in Moldavian-as-it-was-understood-in-the-20th-century, a deprecated statement could be appropriate (deprecated as it is the minority’s position in modern linguistics). --Emu (talk) 12:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Principality of Moldavia (Q10957559). Official coat of arms

  •  
    Coat of arms from the Polish Statute of Jan Laski. 1506
  •  
    Coat of arms of w:Iacob Heraclid. 1561
  •  
    Coat of arms from the German armorial. Around 1586
  •  
    The royal coat of arms of w:Michael the Brave. 1600 (blue shield)
  •  
    Coat of arms of Moldavia from "Stemmatographia". 1702
  •  
    Coat of arms of Moldavia during Grigore III Ghica's rule. 1775
  •  
    Coat of arms of Moldova during the times of Alexander Mourouzis, 1806–1807 (blue shield)
  •  
    Coat of arms of Moldavia under Prince Scarlat Callimachi (ca. 1812)
  •  
    Seal of Moldavia in 1832, with azure tincture indicated by hatching in the original source.
  •  
    Coat of arms of Mihail Sturdza. After 1834
  •  
    Banner of the second battalion of the Moldavian Principality of 1849
  •  
    Coat of arms from the passport of the Moldavian principality. 1855 (red-blue shield)

Here are all the coats of arms that I found, based only on historical color illustrations, illustrations with heraldic shading (tincture), or on an accurate historical description. Any original research, paintings by artists and controversial drawings are excluded. And what is the dominant color of the shield? Where did the coat of arms with a golden bull's head on a red background come from? There are sources confirming that throughout history, a red background prevailed in the coat of arms of the principality? --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

--Лобачев Владимир (talk) 14:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Kindly stick to the point and be brief, as I have already asked you (and others) before. The question seems to be twofold:
  • Should the CoA of Principality of Moldavia (Q10957559) just feature the current red/yellow versions despite the notion that while the main heraldic elements (aurochs/wisent and other elements) had mostly been a fixture throughout the centuries, others (such as the tincture) changed.
  • If so, is the image File:COA of Moldavia 1855.svg appropriate for this purpose, despite it being the modern interpretation based on a 1855 passport that featured a black and white version of this CoA?
Do I understand the core of this discussion? --Emu (talk) 15:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
1 - Yes; 2 - Yes. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes. And I say yes to the first question and no to the second one. While there apparently is no proof for a red flag with a yellow auroch to have been Stephen's personal flag, many sources cite there once was a flag like that used in Moldavia, and that it was used during the times Stephen ruled. And why this one and not another one? Because it's the most common and most widely known flag. Лобачев Владимир for some reason believes this coat of arms is invented and that it comes from Romania's coat of arms which is nonsense, just why would it be invented? If it had never been red and yellow, why would someone invent a version of it with such colors? This red and yellow flag (and I also mean the coat of arms) was used for more than a decade in pretty much all Wikipedias before Лобачев Владимир's edits. When you search "flag of the principality of moldavia" or "coat of arms of the principality of moldavia" in Google, you'll see the 14th-15th century symbols more often than the 19th century ones. Furthermore, Igor Dodon (ex-president of Moldova) proposed adopting a flag based on the oldest symbols in 2017 [37] and they are still widely used by Moldovan nationalists and Moldovenist websites [38] [39] [40]. The most recent ones are not. This is my rationale for using the old symbols over the recent ones. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Can you quote here from a source confirming that throughout history a red background prevailed in the principality's coat of arms? --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Here the principality is symbolized by the coat of arms on a blue background – MOLDAVIA. Heraldry (hubert-herald.nl). --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
While I’m sure this is an important question, I somehow fail to see how this (and other questions like the recent or historic use or misuse of symbols) is relevant in this specific case. I urge you (again) to stick to the point and answer my question above. --Emu (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
I didn't claim a flag with a red background predominated throughout Moldavia's history, I claim the flag of Moldavia had at some point a red background. For sources see my messages above so I don't keep making this discussion longer and harder to read. Emu, yes, those are the main issues of the discussion. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
The flag was red, blue, white and striped. But here is the conversation about the COAT OF ARMS on the red shield. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 08:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

  Done We seem to be in agreement that File:COA of Moldavia 1855.svg (a CoA with colors) is a modern interpretation of a user based on a 1855 passport that featured a black and white version of this CoA. In other words, there may be some circumstantial evidence that one version of this CoA may have been at some point the state’s CoA. But to date no external reputable source has been shown that explicitly and unequivocally says that this rendering of the CoA was at some point the state’s official CoA. I can’t find any indication that this statement would fall under any exception to WD:S. In other words, the statement that File:COA of Moldavia 1855.svg was at some point the CoA of the state needs to be backed by a reference but isn’t. Again, this is not a decision if the CoA is right or wrong or good or bad or based in reality or mere fiction or any combination thereof. It’s just my understanding of the rules of Wikidata.

Note: If the item should just contain one CoA or more than one and indeed which version(s) would be approproate is a different question for which I don’t see any need to discuss it in this forum right now. --Emu (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

after 61 kilobytes of discussion

I think we are   Done here. To sum it up, it is my understanding that current guidelines and current practice suggest that

  1. contentious statements should be backed by references that explicitly and unequivocally confirm the statement (see WD:S) and
  2. even if there are reputable sources for a statement, it may be wise or even necessary to set deprecated rank (see Help:Ranking).

That’s really all the guidance I can give in this situation. I hope this resolves the edit war for good. If not, I hope we don’t have to go through this ordeal again. --Emu (talk) 13:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

We only discussed a few items, me and Vladimir have edit-warred in many, many more. I think some kind of guideline or "rules" we all agree on should be made. For example, not to use the term Moldovan for pre-1924 topics and respect File:COA of Stephen III of Moldavia.svg as Stephen's personal coat of arms in Wikidata items. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Please merge back the following entry (damaged in 2020)

It seems that a year ago, User:Qkiel was working with a bunch of entries related to the Polish Navy. Some cleanup is needed, and I am not able to fix the following issue due to some errors cropping up when I try to merge stuff back:

can you please help with undoing the deleting of Zekey Mercedes

 
screenshot please help
Ping @Martin Urbanec: as deleting admin. However, Q107503569 doesn’t seem to meet WD:N. --Emu (talk) 00:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Protection of pages

Hello this page has been archived without resolution : Sockpuppet cross wiki (14 july). It asks for the blocking of a Sockpuppet and the protection of pages.

Yesterday evening, a new Sockpuppet Englwic (talk • contribs • logs), blocked on wp:fr, again intervened to modify the page Q101417722. Thank you for your actions. --B-noa (talk) 10:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I also ask the sockpuppet Englwic (talk • contribs • logs), (with a "c" at the end) to be blocked because he tried to impersonate my account (mine with a "k" at the end). I think this sockpuppet is the sockpuppet Caux9 (talk • contribs • logs) / Savary34 (talk • contribs • logs). Thank you --Englwik (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  Done Is globally locked. Lymantria (talk) 10:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Lymantria (talk) 10:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Protection of Old Alton Bridge (Q7083385)

Recurring vandalism (again) at Old Alton Bridge (Q7083385). Sjö (talk) 05:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Semiprotected for 3 years now. Lymantria (talk) 06:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Lymantria (talk) 06:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Repeated state changes in Dúrcal (Q559839)

Since April 2020 Lopezsuarez (talk • contribs • logs) has been changing the estatement coat of arms image (P94) in the item Dúrcal (Q559839) (Escudo de Dúrcal (Granada).svg), which has been there since November 2016, for another version (Escudo de Dúrcal (Granada) 2.svg) without indicating any reason ([41],[42],[43],[44],[45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50]). It seems that the reason for doing so is that the image of the CoA has been drawn by me. Spanish Wikipedia, where he tried to do the same, agreed that it was not an appropriate change ([51]). These changes could lead to edit war. Are they legitimate? What can I do to defend my work on Wikidata? Greetings. Abelardo Yard (talk) 11:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The user Abelardo Yard (talk • contribs • logs) intends to impose the Dúrcal coat of arms that he himself made, although it is not the most correct. He is a vandal and is only on Wikidata to vandalize. Lopezsuarez (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
@Lopezsuarez: Please be advised that
  • calling somebody a vandal without proof may be grounds for a block and
  • reverting during an open discussion on this page doesn't help your case at all.
Please give a very compelling reason for your behavior and also why Wikidata should deviate from es.wp. --Emu (talk) 18:43, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Kabylie (Q46178)

Hello,

The article is IP pov-pushing target from Morroco

Regards.--Waran18 (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Global admins

I understand there is a concept as global admins. Gagauz Wikipedia is being used by people who wish to promote totally not notable Azerbaijani people there and as such they also make WD entries to them. I marked some of those so-called biographies for deletion but I understand there is no admin at that WP. This is why I hope some global admin may see my words here and help there. The problem concerning WD is, as I propose deletion here, they open an "article" there (the texts are not even in Gagauz language!) They also remove my deletion tags using IPs. Looking at our (my) deletion requests here, we may imagine whose IPs remove the deletion tags thereat. This is an issue for Wikidata, that is why I write here. (BTW I also marked for deletion a couple of "other" articles written in Azerbaijani Turkish thereat. This one is a Post Datum.) --E4024 (talk) 01:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Not my talk

(I brought the below complaint from a wrong place where it was added.) --E4024 (talk) 02:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism by the user "Osps7" by deleting the item properties, especially the references and the authority control IDs like ISNI, to make it looks empty, then nominating it for deletion, although the user is an editor on arwiki, he was warned before for such vandalism acts, like here: https://ar.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D9%86%D9%82%D8%A7%D8%B4_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%AE%D8%AF%D9%85%3AOsps7&oldid=54595221#%D8%AA%D9%86%D8%A8%D9%8A%D9%87_%D8%A3%D8%AE%D9%8A%D8%B1 --Wahid79 (talk) 01:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  Info Comment back in RfD --Emu (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Emu (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Request for semi-protection of Saddam Hussein (Q1316)

Edit warring (Candalism?)--Trade (talk) 12:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:112.204.166.53

112.204.166.53 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Multiple vandalisms / deletions on Wikibase (Q16354758) and probably on other items. Envlh (talk) 09:19, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

  Done 31 hours. Lymantria (talk) 05:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Lymantria (talk) 05:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning 2806:264:5482:123:4057:67A0:7DE6:267F

2806:264:5482:123:4057:67A0:7DE6:267F (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) spent a few hours today vandalizing a number of people. I suspect the account will continue. --Hjart (talk) 23:35, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

  Done Blocked 3 months. Lymantria (talk) 05:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Lymantria (talk) 05:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Sn0111

Sn0111 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Account created to vandalize David Walliams (Q359665) — eru [Talk] [french wiki] 05:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  Done Indef. Vandalism only account. Lymantria (talk) 05:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Lymantria (talk) 05:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Lopezsuarez

Lopezsuarez (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Unfounded accusation of vandalism on this administrators' noticeboard ([52]) and insult on my talk page ([53]). (If necessary, I could translate the insult from Spanish to English). I also request the removal of the insult from my talk page. Abelardo Yard (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I removed the insult, if you want a revdel an admin can help. --E4024 (talk) 16:07, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

More insults ([54], [55]) and harassment. --Abelardo Yard (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Persisting vandalism on Q16091438

Hello, I am reporting this article because there have been repeated document destructions. This article has been constantly vandalised by 222.100.217.67 (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/222.100.217.67) Please protect Q16091438.너무좋아요 (talk) 05:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:History Pollo

History Pollo (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: User playing with Doctor Strange's data Lost in subtitles (talk) 06:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Semiprotection of Gloria Álvarez (Q20015270)

Persistent vandalism. Valdemar2018 (talk) 21:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

3 months semi-protect after previous semi-protect wasn’t enough --Emu (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Emu (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:7Magix

7Magix (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Account created to vandalize Hermione Granger (Q174009), like 7 days ago, so the page needs a longer semi-protection. — eru [Talk] [french wiki] 20:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Emu (talk) 16:25, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Redirect

Dear Administrator

Kindly redirect Money and Women to wikidata id (Q12238316).

Thanks

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Emu (talk) 16:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Alejandro Fondon Blanco

Alejandro Fondon Blanco (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Account created to vandalize, all its editions have been reverted. Carlitoscarlos (talk) 15:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Emu (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Pokemon repurposing

Just a heads-up that I have blocked Special:Contributions/2001:56A:7790:C900:0:0:0:0/64 for three months. This IP range is very active, especially in the area of Pokemon. Many of their edits are good, and I believe they are well-intended, but they apparently cannot stop themselves from repurposing existing items. This has caused an immense amount of damage to our Pokemon coverage. I have found and fixed something like 100 cases, and I don't know if I have gotten them all, but I have to stop. I'd be open to unblocking if we can get some assurance that they understand what they're doing wrong and will stop. CC @MisterSynergy:. Bovlb (talk) 07:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I hade blocked the same /64 range last year for the same reason, but unblocked again after they had confirmed not to repurpose items any longer in Topic:Vwhjkmcv48f328lm. Seems this was not the case… —MisterSynergy (talk) 07:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
On a side note, it might be better to implement a partial block here for for content namespaces only, as they are generally a valuable editor in my opinion and potentially willing to discuss the issue. Since their IPv6 address changes frequently, this is barely possible with a full block. —MisterSynergy (talk) 07:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
They would still have had the ability to request an unblock in the usual way, but I have adopted your suggestion. Thanks for posting the link to the earlier discussion. Bovlb (talk) 15:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
In Topic:Wd5yyu9dlne101k9, the user is requesting an unblock and appears to be undertaking (again) not to repurpose items in the future, but I'm not getting a strong sense that they actually understand. Bovlb (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Page deletion

Bonjour, la page Q64779153 repose sur le site catholic-hierarchy.org (page).
Cependant le catalogue des archevêques de Vienne (Dauphiné) ne compte pas de Guillaume de Royn (1301-1337), mais Guillaume de « Livron » (ou de « Valence ») 1283-​1305 (Gallia christiana, p.97 ou encore la Notice chronologico-historique sur les archevêques de Vienne p.14).
Merci pour votre intervention.
This character Q64779153 mentioned by the site does not exist in the catalog of the bishops of Vienna.
--B-noa (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I think this request is not really relevant: Gallia christiana dates from 1865; Ulysse Chevalier Notice chronologico-historique sur les archevêques de Vienne dates from 1879 and are both obsolete sources.

Bonjour, la requête traite bien entendu d'un archevêque inconnu de VIENNE.
As a reminder, the request deals with an unknown archbishop ("Guillaume de Royn, archevêque de Vienne ») of the episcopal list of VIENNE (and not of Grenoble). B-noa (talk) 09:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

It refers to an erroneous entry which should have been corrected. Anyway, the correct entry for Guillaume de Royn in catholic-hierarchy.org gives "Bishop Guillaume de Royn † Bishop of Grenoble, France". It’s always better to do some research when there is an ambiguity.
Also it should be clear that Guillaume de Royn (1301-1337) given by catholic-hierarchy.org is also known as Guillaume IV de Royn by others sources. I see you have created some news pages Guillaume III de Royn and Guillaume IV de Royn, its a good thing for disambiguation about Guillaume de Royn and this shows on your part progress in understanding. Good continuation --Englwik (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Protection of Nicki Minaj (Q162202)

Recurring vandalism--Trade (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

  Done for a month--Ymblanter (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Q755830

Persistently being vandalised by someone changing it to himself, blocked as several sockpuppets on Commons. Please semi-protect this item Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Emu (talk) 10:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Return of the LTA vandal

Vandal IP came back! --E4024 (talk) 00:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I blocked them 6 months (twice of last time). --Fralambert (talk) 01:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Fralambert (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Another vandal IP

Please see User contributions for 186.83.184.57. Thx. --E4024 (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

semiprotected Buğra Gülsoy (Q5003637) for a week, put the item on my watchlist. --Emu (talk) 16:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Emu (talk) 16:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2A01:4C8:481:5118:BC20:C1AE:706A:5FAE

2A01:4C8:481:5118:BC20:C1AE:706A:5FAE (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Offensive vandalism. Some of their edits might need to be revdel'd. CrystalLemonade (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

  Done Blocked for 31 hours. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 03:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Semiprotection of Teresa Marinovic (Q106900657)

Persistent vandalism. Valdemar2018 (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  Done Semi-protected for 2 weeks. Pamputt (talk) 10:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism from 2601:18A:C680:A420:646B:C4BB:C5E4:8083

Hello,

2601:18A:C680:A420:646B:C4BB:C5E4:8083 vandalized the following items:

I reverted their edits on theses items.

They also created empty lexemes that should be deleted:

Cheers, — Envlh (talk) 12:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism from Zubryckiy

Zubryckiy (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))

До 1991 года в Dnipro (Q48256) official language (P37) = Russian (Q7737). Zubryckiy удаляет названия на русском языке. --Qh13 (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning IP sock 31.4.238.40

Editing pattern and geolocation shows that 31.4.238.40 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) is a block evading sock of LiliaMiller2002 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)). Example: [57]. Sjö (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Bbbbbbbruhhhhhhhhhh

Bbbbbbbruhhhhhhhhhh (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism in descriptions Ɀɾαɯɳ Շคɭк 23:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Q2341584

I ask that the data object Mara Karetsos (Q2341584) be protected. A new user is currently trying to delete the data on the person treated in the object. --Gymnicus (talk) 09:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

  Done The site was protected by User:Bovlb on 20. Juli 2021 (4.01 pm)[58]. --Gymnicus (talk) 10:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I wanted to discuss the item in the Project chat, but I think it's also possible to do it here. Just look at the request for deletion of Q2341584. M(r)s Karetsos via her representative wants to delete the Wikidata item about her persona, then restore it with a required (sic) data after her website will be created. It sounds like a nonsense but she seems to threaten us court.
    How to react to this properly?
    In fact, she's not really notable, I have read the article about her in the Dutch Wikipedia where it's claiming that Karetsos used to be UNESCO Woman of the Year, but it's not proven (there's a source with no mention of hers). Honestly I'd like to nominate the article for deletion but I don't speak Dutch (any native speaker here?..), after then we would decide what to do with the item. --Wolverène (talk) 11:39, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
She has an AKL Online artist ID (P4432) identifier. That’s #2 notability even without the sitelink. --Emu (talk) 13:17, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Q48256

A vandal deletes info from element and did edit war. MBH (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  Done for a week, but our discussion at the talk page of the user suggests that Wikidata does not benefit from continued possibility of this user to edit. Waiting for desysop request, as they promised.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:MusicologoVzla

MusicologoVzla (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: MusicologoVzla has engaged in cross-wiki disruptive editing, including now Wikidata, attempting to change the name of the Venezuelan state Vargas to the obscure name "La Guaira" (Q205843). He has already been blocked in the German Wikipedia for this reason. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

  Done for a week--Ymblanter (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Protection of "Kabylie" (Q46178)

Please protect Kabylie (Q46178) from vandalism. --وهراني (talk) 18:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

  Done for a month--Ymblanter (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Corvo 393

Corvo 393 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism Darubrub (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

  Done blocked as vandalism-only account --Emu (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Regarding translations of the MediaWiki: namespace

I've recently populated Category:Wikidata protected edit requests with some edit requests that concerns translation of the MediaWiki interface. Could someone could go through this and create all the translation pages? --Sabelöga (talk) 01:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning IP sock 178.139.239.32

Editing pattern and geolocation shows that this is a block evading sock of LiliaMiller2002 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)). Considering the volume of vandalism, please consider blocking the range, see Special:Contributions/178.139.0.0/16. Almost all the edits during the last two months are from LiliaMiller2002 socks. Sjö (talk) 14:01, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Links: 178.139.239.32 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)). See also Report concerning IP sock 178.139.228.130. Sjö (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Mineral Nomenclature

I am asking for your support, your help, your wisdom/ standard procedure
I have a degree in chemical/biochemical engineering. I am editing mineralogy, learning by doing. I have 263.7k edits, mainly on Wikidata:Mineralogy task force
I have problems with user X: User talk:Chris.urs-o/IMA status before 1959?. I do not know if he is trolling me, on over drive or a blocked user. He seems to systematically avoid the Administrators' noticeboard by changing IPs. There is no talk page, no email, no history
New editors adding, restore revision 1437159155 by Chris.urs-o: "contradicts status definition in current source (and its later versions), and not backed by any other known source, see further talk comments", avoids reverts and it is not helpful
A mineral needs an item number, a label, a description, an 'instance of', an 'subclass of' and an 'IMA status and/or rank'. These are core properties, editing is critical.
International Mineralogical Association (IMA)/ Commission on new minerals, nomenclature and classification (CNMNC) maintains the list of valid minerals. Of course, procedures have changed when a new sheriff is in town
The IMA List of Minerals has the list of valid minerals, it is updated 6 times per year. It is an abstract, it lists only 3 scientific papers. I use rruff.info for more information
approved, preferred name (A′): it is not used anymore
revalidated mineral (R): it is not used anymore
hypothetical mineral or suspended approval (H): it is not used anymore. As a valid mineral has a type material, and if it does not have a type material it is discredited
auxiliary status: published before 1959: I created this status for the time before IMA. User X wanted me to use described by source, I am complying
Citation: "G = grandfathered (it applies to minerals discovered before the birth of IMA, and generally considered as valid species)". This is a caveat on the The IMA List of Minerals. CNMNC can now say the minerals were valid and now they get redefined/ renamed. But the main decision to grandfather some minerals or discredit some minerals was only published on March 2007
'The IMA List of Minerals' uses a short for some IMA numbers: YEAR s.p. (special procedure). Sometimes the real application number is on the CNMNC Newsletter. MinDat and rruff use IMAYEAR s.p., it is nice for google search
I can not use mindat.org as reference, as I get blocked. Their IMA numbers seem to be less reliable, as well
Metauranocircite-I was renamed on Nickel E H, Nichols M C (2009) IMA/CNMNC list of mineral names as IMA2007 s.p. (rruff.info). So my edit is correct
I am cleaning up grandfathered minerals. Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Alejandra Azcárate (Q129922)

Please semi-protect Alejandra Azcárate (Q129922) due to persistent vandalism by anonymous editors. –LiberatorG (talk) 19:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  Done for a month--Ymblanter (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning IP sock 178.139.228.130

Editing pattern and geolocation shows that 178.139.228.130 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) is a block evading sock of LiliaMiller2002 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)). Considering the volume of vandalism, please consider blocking the range, see Special:Contributions/178.139.0.0/16. Almost all the edits during the last two months are from LiliaMiller2002 socks. See e.g. how this French writer (1930-2021) was killed by "drug", was buried in Wuhan, China and was baptized in early childhood in 2006 (at which time he would have been 76) [59]. Sjö (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Can you check my conversation with an admin

Hey people, can someone check this convo and let me know if something is weird? Again I'm not judging, I'm just curious how the user made that statement in his/her message. Thanks. --Palaangelino (talk) 20:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

That admin would be me. See Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions#Bulk_deletion_request:_Items_created_by_User:Palaangelino for the first part of the conversation. --Emu (talk) 20:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Additional context: The complaining user is indef blocked on tr.wp for sockpuppeting. If I understand the reasoning correctly (as I don’t speak Turkish, I have to rely on Google Translate), one of the Wikidata items in question (Q106381290) was even part of the evidence. --Emu (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
I wasn't sockpuppeting thou. They accused me and I took my ban, stayed silent. I can prove the truth and get my account back if you're trying to take a defence stance here by stating my Wikipedia TR actions which are not related to our subject. --Palaangelino (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Please don't make this convo personal or not-related to Wikidata. I'll wait for other admins' views for the conversation we made in your talk page. --Palaangelino (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Out of context, as the user opened up the subject for a defense mechanism, I can also explain why they accused, judged, and banned me for sockpuppeting and what happened in WP:TR if needed to clear your mind in a different subject. Cuz Turkey didn't want to hear my explanation and directly banned me w/o asking me the "why". Maybe I'll have a chance to explain it from here to them thanks to you. In addition, I don't want to clear my ban in TR and go back to WP:TR, I'm happy contributing to WD, Commons and WP:EN time to time. I just want you to know that I'm here not breaking any rules. Thanks again. --Palaangelino (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:8.47.13.234

8.47.13.234 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: All of its editions include fake information, offenses or political slogans Josedan1 (talk) 22:48, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Edits stopped two days ago, were reverted, a block wouldn’t matter now.

The user is vandalizing again today (27 July 2021).

  Done blocked for a week --Emu (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Using Wikidata for favorite pornstars

I admit to being unfamiliar with Wikidata's norms, but somehow adding "Lisa Lewis OnlyFans Model / Creator Top 0.8% in the world. Provides phone-sex on 0900 LEWIS in New Zealand. LisaLewis.Adult website directs traffic to OnlyFans: Lisa Lewis xxx", as TechGuy has done, to a description seems wrong to me. Furthermore, El Gaafary has re-added unverifiable information on birthdate and place of birth. This isn't Wikipedia, but such unsourced information would clearly not fly there. CaptainEek (talk) 05:25, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I blocked TechGuy241390 indef, clearly spanm-only account. Not so sure about El_Gaafary.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:GuySh

GuySh (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Keeps reverting Jerusalem (Q1218) despite having been informed that there's a consensus on the label established in 2017. Please either block the user or protect the article from further revision. Bender235 (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

There is no consensus there. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel whether anyone agrees or not. GuySh (talk) 15:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Baptiste de Lusignan

Baptiste de Lusignan (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: deletion of content without any reason. FogueraC (talk) 10:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning 178.139.228.130

178.139.228.130 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) has over the last 3 days been adding random incorrect info to a number of items, including Bent Melchior (Q4890338), who died today. --Hjart (talk) 11:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

rename my page please - Q86431843

Hi, Please rename my page Q86431843 For my partner's name: "Roni Bar-David" base on https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9266-6376. you lock my page, so i ask here. Thank you.

164.52.213.3 12:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC) Why every time I ask, you ignore me or delete the request.I just don’t want my name here. This my partner's name "Roni Bar-David" base on https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9266-6376, https://www.crunchbase.com/person/roni-bar-david.

Why do you want your name to be "Roni" when all over your internet presence it says "Roi". Why should we use your partner's name? BrokenSegue (talk) 13:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

164.52.213.3 13:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC) hi, I don’t want my name appear here, I am in the process of removing from other places. I asked to remove the page but you don’t agree so I ask to change the name to my partner. 164.52.213.3 13:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC) my partner is also biologist..

ok maybe this is actually Q107330444 impersonating Roi Ben-David (Q86431843) in order to reduce confusion between the two? Changing their name to their partner's makes no sense. I'm not sure what the rules regarding take downs of people that clearly pass notability rules (due to structural need) are so hopefully an admin will show up. But I do think we need to confirm this person is who they say they are. BrokenSegue (talk) 13:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

164.52.213.3 13:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC) How can I prove my identity to you?

Probably by an email request to Wikidata:Oversight using the business email address featured on official webpages of the accomplished scientist you claim to be and with good reasons why you don’t want this information to be public. But given this information, this has already been tried in vain. --Emu (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

164.52.213.3 15:14, 28 July 2021 (UTC) Who can please help me? Why it's so hard. I have proven myself, I am just asking to change the name or delete the page That written about me ..

where did you prove your identity? have you emailed the oversighters? You could also make a page on your lab website to confirm your identity here. that said it doesn't resolve the central issue. BrokenSegue (talk) 16:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
  Comment The same IP also heavly edited the technician Roi Ben-David Special:DeletedContributions/164.52.213.3. So I have my doubt about it's identity. --Fralambert (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Cross Wikipedia promotion and sock puppets for Prix Versailles

An investigation has found that articles on en:Prix Versailles and related subjects were the subject of a coordinated campaign of promotion, over several years and sixteen languages, involving numerous sock puppets and probably paid editing. Ten active and six older accounts were identified in a meta sock puppet investigation. If you have any questions or comments please post them here or at the Cross-Wikipedia section of the en Wikipedia discussion. TSventon (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Modifications de Rafiki Eoax

Azul, les modifications de User:Rafiki Eoax dans "Kabylie" (Q46178) sont problématique. C'est possible de lui laisser un message? On lui a déjà laissé un message mais il ne répond pas [60]. --Buxlifa (talk) 13:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Azul, c'est possible de faire quelques choses pour arrêter ça [61]? --Buxlifa (talk) 14:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
J'ai bloqué l'accès en écriture à Kabylia (Q46178) à Rafiki Eoax pendant 3 mois. J'espère que ça suffira. Pamputt (talk) 17:47, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning 99.111.168.115

99.111.168.115 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) is active vandalizing a number of TV series. --Hjart (talk) 21:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  Done Blocked for 1 week. Pamputt (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Hasley+ 15:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:99.111.168.115

99.111.168.115 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: vandalism - inter-wiki InMontreal (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

  Done Blocked for 1 week. Pamputt (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Hasley+ 15:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

restore request Q104054583

Dear colleagues,

I deleted Q104054583 at the request of User:Ari T. Benchaim together with 9 other items ( see deletion log). The item was recreated as Q107709953. The user requested me to restore the item on my talk page: Topic:Wdo2ks17zqlv7t0d. They cited four sources:

  1. http://www.onenews.my/lukisan-potret-raja-permaisuri-agong-tular/
  2. https://www.themalayapost.my/terus-menjadi-inspirasi-ramai-pemuda-berbakat-tunjuk-skill-lukis-potret-raja-permaisuri-agong/
  3. https://www.mstar.com.my/lokal/viral/2019/10/27/lukisan-tunku-aminah-fotostat
  4. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Eg1NnW8aK0I&feature=youtu.be

Onenews and Malaya Post don’t seem like regular media. The article on mstar seems promotional in nature (this section of the website regularly seems to feature artists of rather mixed quality). I’m not so sure about the claimed “TV news” but rather skeptical. But then again, I might be biased for some reason. Could anyone have a look and decide accordingly? Thanks! --Emu (talk) 08:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Just a quick side note: This edit and other similar ones together with the creation of many items for artwork, production company and even family members factored into my original decision to delete. But I’m happy to be corrected if I misjudged. --Emu (talk) 09:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
I stand by my original RfD. In my view, an individual work of art must have individual notability, i.e. beyond a collateral mention (e.g. be exhibited). All of these seem promotional in nature. A work of art may become notable over time, but at the present, I do not see how this meets WD:N. As always, happy to have greater minds correct me. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello sir, firstly it's not a promotional. It went viral and attracted many medias including the television news. And one more thing, i didn't want you to focus on the artwork but i want you to focus on the artist. I just need you to restore the artist's wikidata not his artwork's. His achievements are, his artwork has entered the national palace and the owner of his artwork now is Her Majesty Queen Tunku Azizah. Hopefully you can reconsider to restore.

So do I get this right: This sketch was given to the queen and she accepted the gift? [[File:The Tunku Azizah Portrait.jpg|thumb]] --Emu (talk) 13:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes sir, the queen accepted the gift, his artwork entered the national palace right after Her Majesty The Queen Tunku Azizah interested to accept the gift

Report concerning User:Erwin William

Erwin William (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: vandalisme sur les pages Claire Bouilhac » (Q2975016) et Jake Raynal (Q3160632) par suppression d'image sans les substituer ni justifier le changement ? Merci Gérald Garitan (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC) Gérald Garitan (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

User contributions for 181.66.169.71

181.66.169.71 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) --E4024 (talk) 16:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I think.. this user has already gone somewhere else. Let us know when vandalism starts again. --Sotiale (talk) 05:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Hasley+ 14:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Garena Free Fire (Q51883198)

Excessive spammers activity. Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for a month for spam--Ymblanter (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Hasley+ 14:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

IPs removing description

Can we protect Q12223 from IPs several days please? Maybe they get bored and give up... --E4024 (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

  Done @E4024: semi-protected for 6 months (last semi-protect was for 3 months). --Emu (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Hasley+ 14:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Relevance of newspaper articles and blog posts

Is it really permissible to create data objects for newspaper articles or blog posts and then use them for references so that one can argue that they have a structural use? I always thought with newspaper articles and blog posts one should use the property reference URL (P854) in a source. But then there is, for example, the blog post Q21079834 which has its own data object. Is this really permissible, especially if the author Q21079840 becomes relevant via this blog post, even though she only wrote this one blog post? --Gymnicus (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

...That's the official blog of a multi billion media conglomerate
Anyways, newspaper --Trade (talk) 21:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
@Trade: A little exaggerated thought further: So I should also create a data object for the website https://www.bsd-portal.de/sport/bob/athleten/#471 because I use this website as a reference for the data objects Deborah Levi (Q61746535), Vanessa Mark (Q78115360) Laura Nolte (Q81735832), Cynthia Kwofie (Q107625887)? --Gymnicus (talk) 11:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Great info. --Palaangelino (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
@Gymnicus: You should bring this up on Wikidata:Project chat; this is not the right place for such a content-related discussion I think. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
@ArthurPSmith: I do not think so. As administrators, you are responsible for the deletion decisions and thus for the interpretation of the current relevance criteria. So it's up to you to explain why simple newspaper articles like 'Cars 3' Poster: Lightning McQueen Enters the Upside Down (Exclusive) (Q27928230) or simple blog entries like Q21079834 are relevant. Is it just because they are used as references or something else? --Gymnicus (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive/2021/07&oldid=1719512218"