User talk:Addshore

From Wikidata
Jump to: navigation, search
Cyberduck Mac.png
Cyberduck Mac.png
Pages Mac.png
Numbers1 Mac.png
Email Me!
Email Me

Andy Mabbett (Q15136093)[edit]

Please give a link to an undelition requesst. --Succu (talk)

There was no deletion request, please see User_talk:Jasper_Deng#Q15136093_-_2 for relevant discussion post restoration. ·addshore· talk to me! 22:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Mm, simply undo it. --Succu (talk) 22:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Restoring items[edit]

Are your actions being discussed somewhere? I'd like to know. Thanks in advance, --Ricordisamoa 08:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The individual actions or the group of actions? I guess the main discussion I would point you to would be Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Redirect_vs._deletion. To avoid repeating myself I will also link you to this post. I have stopped restoring items for now so that we can discuss the actions! ·addshore· talk to me! 08:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
If you have no objections to this I will continue when I next find the time! ·addshore· talk to me! 20:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't see the benefit in restoring items that were deleted way before the aforementioned policy was established, since it's extremely unlikely that someone relied upon them as permanent identifiers. --Ricordisamoa 22:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
It's very difficult to say for sure that nobody used them though, because there's nothing tracking usage by external projects. For example, I found around 1000 links from MusicBrainz to Wikidata which were broken, the majority of which were just things which were merged and then deleted before that policy was introduced and most of them have now been fixed by addshore. It might not be of any benefit to you, but if someone else is willing to do it (which addshore clearly is), is there a reason not to do it? - Nikki (talk) 23:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, there is no reason not to do it. We gain more by having the redirects in place rather than having deleted items. ·addshore· talk to me! 23:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


See Wikidata:Project_chat#Q404. John Vandenberg (talk) 01:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


Hi Addshore, you wrote in :

  • "We have an accurate idea of how many items have actually been deleted due to not being notable / being test items."

Do you have stats about "how many items have actually been deleted due to not being notable / being test items"? This would be quite interesting. Does wikidata have a workflow to delete non-notable items that were deleted from Wikipedias? --Atlasowa (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, I say stats... The number of items deleted due to not being notable / being test items are the current number of deleted items - 6000. If you want some more detailed stats I can probably break it down for you a bit more based on edit summaries etc. The only workflow is Wikidata:RFD ·addshore· talk to me! 17:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Addshore, some related quarry queries:
Best deleters on Wikidata
Why did you delete these items?
Wikidata items with removed sitelink(s)
Wikidata item redirects
Wikidata Most common deletion summaries
Deletions per day at wikidata
--Atlasowa (talk) 22:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


Hi Addshore,

I had a look at grafana. It seems even more technical than wdm. Is there any plan to include this type of metrics or even to reproduce the Q5 graphic that was on wdm? --- Jura 20:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Can you link me to the graph you mean on wdm? ·addshore· talk to me! 20:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I tried to link it on Andre's page, but I now notice that the link doesn't work. It's under "Daily RDF" > "Queries" > "Graphs" (currently the only one). Number of items with P31=Q5. --- Jura 20:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
So we are tracking this on the grafana graphs as well. See specifically . I need to make it display the item labels however! If you click on one of the item IDs at the bottom you can see the graph only for that item ID! ·addshore· talk to me! 20:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Good stuff! May I suggest types to add? I know everybody loves chemistry, but we don't seem to get too many items from that ;) There is a fairly large cluster of genetics-related items. Human settlements would be another approach to some of the geographic items (not necessarily exclusive of Q56061). --- Jura 20:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Actually, my initial question was if we could do a set of indicators for WikiProject Movies. They would be a bit different from the ones I do manually for WikiProject Names. --- Jura 20:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
If you have some more instance of IDs to add then we probably could! :) As for things for WikiProject Movies it may be better to do this on labs! ·addshore· talk to me! 21:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
The problem with the genetics stuff is that they are subclasses ;) For the others, if yes, I can up with a few more. It's just for wikisource that I'm a bit at loss. Maybe it should be done based on a count of wikisource only sitelinks. Labs that would be wdm? --- Jura 21:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
BTW, how about a new panel: statements by property (Jura1 methodology)? --- Jura 00:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Statements by property could indeed be interesting *goes to make sure it is not already there*... Indeed it is not! Added to my post it note collection! :) ·addshore· talk to me! 10:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

String -> identifier conversion[edit]

Hi Addshore, I was looking at User:Addshore/Identifiers. You probably need a list of obvious identifiers, obvious not identifiers and the area in between. Based on that people can provide input. If you are going to convert the current list it's not going to work out. Multichill (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Per Lydia's last comment on [1] we have split the page into sections now to make it more clear what has been reviewed and what will likely be switched. Also before the switch we will specificy exactly what will be moved and when! ·addshore· talk to me! 11:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Unblock of User:Dispenser[edit]

Hi Addshore. I am significantly concerned about your unblock of User:Dispenser, given 1) the growing consensus on the talk page to keep the block intact, and 2) that Dispenser has not committed to refrain from the controversial behavior (at least the posting of personal/sensitve information). Also, I am disappointed that I was not consulted before unblocking, as that is standard practice on most major Wikimedia sites. Could you please explain? Thanks. Rschen7754 18:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey User:Rschen7754! You had already stated that you would "not be reviewing this block request". As a totally uninvolved party I read all of the comments on the page, as well as looking at the events surrounding the block and talking with other involved parties. As said in the unblock reason these appeared to be a lack of malice and also the consequences seemed unexpected.
One of the things that I did not mention in the unblock reason was the warning given to User:Dispenser and shortly after the block, when of course Dispenser had had no time, when prompted, to consider the ramifications of his actions.
As suggested in the unblock message Dispenser should probably stay away from editing of this sort until some kind of discussion has taken place to gather consensus on these kinds of items in the future. I have no doubt that if Dispenser edits in such a way again before a discussion has taken place they will be indefinitely blocked, I would even defend such a block, but lets assume a bit of good faith here.
Also regarding the issue of items about Wikimedians as a whole there are many more examples on Wikidata where similar edits have been made (maybe not so close together or by the same person) and the community has not remarked, thus we should take this opportunity to discuss.
·addshore· talk to me! 19:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
That sounds like a good rationale for a repeat vandal, but in this case the privacy of editors that could affect them in real life is at stake. It's worse than even being blocked wrongly, because once something private is revealed, the damage is already done and cannot be undone.
There are over 16 million items on this site, much more than even enwiki, and the existence of a few controversial ones is likely to go unnoticed. I wouldn't give much weight to nobody objecting to them. --Rschen7754 01:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't know where exactly in what I have said you find a rationale for a repeat vandal, I see the opposite..
The notability of all of the items of course could be argued (but I don't want to get into that).
Privacy is of course important, but in terms of data and oversight there needs to be a distinction between private information, publicly private information and openly public information. In theory if Dispenser had actually referenced all of the data that they added to the items would the reaction be different? If it is referenced then it is presumably public, but naturally there would still be objections to the data now being semantically tied together.
As said before discussion should defiantly happen about the issue, but Dispenser's talk page is not the correct location for that (and neither is mine), possibly an RFC covering everything involved? Another thing to discuss would be future blocks surrounding this same issue, Wikidata:Blocking_policy actually seems to lack a reason matching up to the block. ·addshore· talk to me! 09:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Deleting my userpage[edit]

Hello, could you please remove my user page ? My meta's userpage will be displayed instead. Thanks Archi38 (talk) 11:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@Archi38: I've done it for you. Jared Preston (talk) 11:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Archi38 (talk) 11:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

References in cast members[edit]

Hi, Addshore

I've seen that you added a lot of references for cast member (P161) in Iron Man (Q192724). According to Help:Sources/Items_not_needing_sources#When_the_item_itself_is_a_source_for_a_statement, it's not necessary because the movie itself is the source (via end credits).

--Escudero (talk) 15:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Interesting, semantically that should still be represented somehow. ·addshore· talk to me! 15:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to Wikidata user study[edit]

Dear Addshore,
I am a researcher of the Web and Internet Science group of the University of Southampton.
Together with a group of other researchers from the same University, we are currently conducting a research aiming to discover how newcomers become full participants into the Wikidata community. We are interested in understanding how the usage of tools, the relationships with the community, and the knowledge and application of policy norms change from users' first approach to Wikidata to their full integration as fully active participants.
This study will take place as an interview, either by videotelephony, e.g. Skype, phone, or e-mail, according to the preference of the interviewees. The time required to answer all the questions will likely be about an hour. Further information can be found on the Research Project Page Becoming Wikidatians: evolution of participation in a collaborative structured knowledge base.
Any data collected will be treated in the strictest confidentiality, no personal information will be processed for the purpose of the research. The study, which has submission number 20117, has received ethical approval following the University of Southampton guidelines.
We aim at gathering about 20 participants, chosen among experienced Wikidata users who authored a large number of contributions.
Should you be interested in taking part or wish to receive further information, you can contact us by writing to the e-mail address
Thank you very much, your help will be much appreciated!
--Alessandro Piscopo (talk) 08:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


I started to use your wikibase-api for a tool I made and ran into the problem that my edit summary wasn't used. Found out that in RevisionSaver.php the passed editInfo was always overwritten. I fixed it myself in the code of RevisionSaver.php and wanted to create a pull request on Github noticing it was already fixed there. I installed the latest version of wikibase-api (0.6.0) using composer yesterday. So I think you need to update your composer package. Also noticed the 0.6 release on Github also contains the outdated version of the RevisionSaver. Could you update the composer package? Mbch331 (talk) 06:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your message Mbch331! I have released 0.7 now that I assume has the fix you need! ·addshore· talk to me! 19:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

human edits flagged as being bot edits[edit]

Just to let you know that all your edits that appear on my watchlist are being flagged as bot edits, including ones which are distinctly unbotlike such as [2]. Thryduulf (talk) 18:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

You've had the flood flag on since June 28. This is a direct violation of Wikidata:Flooders. --Rschen7754 18:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: Interesting, I was actually unaware that the flood flag would set edits through the regular UI as bot edits, otherwise I would have removed the flag before replying to those sections!
@Rschen7754: I have stopped and removed the flood flag for now to discuss. I don't see anything in the policy that explicitly says there is a time period after which a flag would be classed as permanent (thus a bot flag being needed). I admit that these edits have been taking allot longer than expected but I would still not personally say the flag is permanent, but perhaps it is time to move this to a bot / flood account. ·addshore· talk to me! 18:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, the issue is that every edit you made (including your comments) since June 28 was marked as a bot edit, which is against policy. --Rschen7754 00:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Yep, which is 8 edits and is totally my bad, as said above I would have assumed that unless you marked an edit with the bot flag it would remain a regular edit. You can see in the rights log for things like this I do generally set and remove the flag. ·addshore· talk to me! 08:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Addbot 5 marking dates with less-than-likely calendars[edit]

I have added a comment to Phabricator task T105100. It would be helpful if you would state what date range the bot will consider when marking dates that claim to be in the Gregorian calendar, but probably should be in the Julian calendar, and vice versa. The ranges of interest would be

  1. The earliest and latest dates the calendar can, or will, operate on (13,800,000,000 BCE to 5,000,000,000 CE, or something a bit narrower). If you want a suggestion, I suggest considering dates on or after January 1, 4713 BC, proleptic Julian calendar (November 24, 4714 BC, in the proleptic Gregorian calendar). This is the beginning of the w:Julian day system of numbering days.
  2. The range of dates that ought to be Gregorian (perhaps beginning 1924, the first full year Greece switched from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar, for government purposes)
  3. The range of dates that ought to be Julian (perhaps the last such date should be 4 October 1582 Julian).

Will the bot be checking for anything beyond whether the calendar choice for the year, or will it also check for impossible dates too (for example, 29 February 1700, is valid in the Julian calendar but not the Gregorian)?

Jc3s5h (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey! I'll comment on the ticket! :) ·addshore· talk to me! 17:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Gregorian date before 1584[edit]

Concerning amendments 2 questions: 1. Why "Gregorian date before 1584", when the Gregorian calendar was introduced from 15 October 1582. 2. Why is the date before 1582 are marked as Gregorian? Boat made thousands of edits. --Kalendar (talk) 09:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi there! Please see the phabricator task @ as the whole process & selection etc are described and discussed there & in joining tickets. ·addshore· talk to me! 09:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)