User talk:Izno

From Wikidata
Jump to: navigation, search

Wikidata:Interwiki conflicts[edit]

Where are the not resolved interwiki conflicts? --ValterVB (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata:Interwiki conflicts/Unresolved. Your version of the header probably needs to be translated. --Izno (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes I saw it. Thanks --ValterVB (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Q618123[edit]

It seems that en-link doesn't fit to the item. Because many others (de, ru, fr, uk, ...) admit any object, either populated or not. --Infovarius (talk) 20:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

My report is about another topic than the one you are talking about[edit]

You reverted my report. First of all, I don't know why are you are making a point that it's on "the very top of this page" as if that's visible when you report a Interwiki conflict. Secondly and most important, my conflict was about changing the name so it's not the same thing. --IRISZOOM (talk) 04:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

@IRISZOOM: Apologies on the first point. To the second point, we typically tend to deal with related conflicts in the same report. --Izno (talk) 05:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
No problem. Okay, I don't think they are related but if it's going to be renamed, if that's the correct thing, it's good. --IRISZOOM (talk) 05:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Rivers and streets[edit]

Hi, Izno, could you comment [1]. This comment contains analysis only part of discussed arguments and introduce new arguments. Why you place it in form of summary, not usual vote comment? This form makes new arguments discussion hard. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

@Ivan A. Krestinin: I am willing to amend my summary to not bring up any additional arguments (would you be asking me here about the discussion if I had not to begin with? :) and to mention all of the "discussed" arguments (though I find the opposition to be much more persuasive), but my close will not be changing. It is apparent to me that there is no consensus for adding the property. --Izno (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Argument about "coordinates of the end" was not discussed previously. Argument about object presenting instead of describing important object`s properties was only mention, but was not discussed. So, your "summary" does not summarize discussion. It introduce new vision to the subject. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
@Ivan A. Krestinin: I will not entertain a discussion on whether the property will be created. Are you asking me to remove those comments or simply stating so? --Izno (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I think such comments must be placed to discussion section, not to summary section. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
So if I remove my "summary", you would be happy? Isn't that rather bureaucratic of you? :) --Izno (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
This is not bureaucratic question. Summary that does not contain existing arguments analysis is looked like personal point of view. New arguments in summary confirms this also. Another users can have another points of view. So questions "Why his point of view is marked as summary, but my is marked as one of vote comments only? Why my point of view is discussable, but his point is definitive and undiscussible?" cause conflicts. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Commonscat removing[edit]

[2] what about to check, why bot again and again add "incorrect" statement? or notify, if you are not sure? JAn Dudík (talk) 08:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm just a lazy bastard. :^) --Izno (talk) 12:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for feedback on my GSoC'14 proposal[edit]

Hi Izno,

I am planning to work on the project titled "Tools for mass migration of legacy translated wiki content" this summer under Google Summer of Code. I have drafted a proposal for the same over the past few weeks. This project is going to help the translation adminstrators like you in a great way, as it would completely automate the tedious manual task of preparing a page for translation and then importing the translations into the Translate extension. You can check the proposal page for detailed information on how I plan to accomplish this.

As you would be an end user of this tool, it would be great if you could go through the proposal and provide feedback/suggestions. Your feedback would definitely help me improve the proposal as well help in creating an even better tool. You can do the same on the discussion page of the proposal or reply here, whichever is convenient for you. I look forward to hearing from you! Thank you!

P.S: I need to submit the proposal to Google by March 19, 2014.

BPositive (talk) 13:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Using P289 for ship class[edit]

Hi Izno, I noticed this recent change of yours where you assigned a ship class item to property instance of (P31). Following rules from Wikidata:WikiProject Ships/Properties#Individual ships, ship classes should be assigned with vessel class (P289) (which is used by some wp templates) and P31 should point to ship types, attack submarine (Q4818021) in the case of HNLMS Zeehond (Q13728690). Thanks for the input, though -- LaddΩ chat ;) 02:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Laddo: There is a PFD for vessel class (P289), so I reserve the right to use instance of (P31) until such time as that PFD closes as a keep. --Izno (talk) 02:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I see. Fair. -- LaddΩ chat ;) 02:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
@Laddo: which, on that point, I think the bot should not have been running... given that they are the same property, reversal of the changes shouldn't be too difficult. --Izno (talk) 02:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikinews topic categories[edit]

...are linked from the items of the corresponding Wikipedia articles. This is one of the cases where non-mainspace pages on a non-Wikipedian sister associate with Wikipedia mainspace pages. --Pi zero (talk) 01:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


Problematic edits on property constraints[edit]

Hi Izno,

If you are not sure how things work, I'd suggest rather you ask first before reverting users with rather pointless edit summaries.

If you consider editing constraints, maybe you should attempt to deal with constraint reports first. Once you gain some experience, suggest changes to existing constraints and let people review your suggestions. --- Jura 18:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

@Jura1: I probably have as many edits as you. And I'm a former administrator. And have been around longer than you. So be careful regarding how much you presume I do or do not know.

As for the gist of your comment, my point is that adding a regex OR to capture no values is not sensible. The more correct approach is to add that item as a known exception to the more general rule unless there are so many no values as to make that unreasonable. One offensive item is not sensible in this case. --Izno (talk) 18:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the edit count actually matters. Several fairly recent contributors have a sound understanding how things work, probably because they regularly contribute to the site and help build the database in a substantial way.
I do see that your point of view is that a given approach is not sensible and that there is an approach that you may see as more sensible.
Edit summaries like "knock it off" are in inappropriate when it comes to mere difference of point of view on technical questions, it can be seen as a lack of understanding in the underlying issues and an indication that one merely comments out of personal animosity. --- Jura 06:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
That might be the most cogent response I've seen from you on the entire wiki in the time I've edited/lurked. Consider being so cogent in the future, rather than your usual two- or three-word comments which look like you don't care what the other person is saying.

True, edit count doesn't matter (though I suspect on review you have more than I--Widar is useful, eh?).

Noted. I think a community discussion should be held on the point; in addition, we seem to have neither help page nor policy/guideline page on constraints (that the briefest of searches could identify).

Maybe. When a user is disagreed with in one place regarding the value of a certain (technical) change, and goes on to other pages to make the same change, that user can be or should be viewed as making disruptive changes. It looks like the user hasn't learned that there are multiple points of view and is editing without concern for it. The more proper response in my case is probably less "knock it off" and more "WD:PC" or elsewhere, but it obviously got you to turn your head. --Izno (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)