You recently deleted Q23931078 citing lack of notability; despite the fact that the item was cited to reliable sources. Please restore it.
In the deletion request discussion a majority of the contributing users supported the deletion, that's why I carried it out.
I will not restore the item because I don't value your opinion more than the opinion of four community members combined.
A "majority" may have done so - but we do not vote. Your job, as an admin, is to weigh the arguments, not to apply your personal judgement of those making them. And since the item was cited to reliable sources, arguments that the item did not meet the notability criteria were clearly bogus.
As I wrote, I don't value your opinion more than the opinion of four community members combined. In my language, to value=to weight. So I exactly did what you write is the job of an admin.
I did also not apply my personal judgment of users. When I wrote "your opinion" I meant your specific comments in the discussion, not your general attitude.
What you think? (Perhaps a Template:Wikidata list would be better to enable display of the matching data etc., but it's a task for some point later … :) )
The category will be added with the next update.
Bot doesn't update subject. Please, fix. -- ~~~~
Give your feedback about changes to Special:Block
You are receiving this message because you are a top user of Special:Block on this wiki. Thank you for the important work that you do. There is a discussion happening about plans to improve Special:Block with the ability to set new types of blocks. To get the best design and new functions added, it is essential that people who use the tool join the discussion and share their opinions about these changes.
Instead of a full site wide block, you would be able to set a Partial Block. A user could be blocked from a single page, multiple pages, one or more namespaces, from uploading files, etc. There are several different ways to add this feature to Special:Block. Right now Important decisions are being made about the design and function.
Please review the page on Meta and share your feedback on the discussion page. Or you can reach me by email Also, share this message with anyone else who might be interested in participating in the discussion.
I appreciate any time that you can give to assist with making improvements to this feature. Cheers, SPoore (WMF) (talk) , Trust and Safety Specialist, Community health initiative (talk) 01:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Apologizes for posting in English.
Wikidata:Database reports/Complex constraint violations/P1087
Dein Bot ist hier bis 31. Juli täglich vorbeigekommen, seither nicht mehr. Wo klemmts?
Das liegt am neuen Constraint "Twofold Elo ratings", welcher von dir am 1. August hinzugefügt wurde. Da der SPARQL Query immer die Zeitüberschreitungsgrenze erreicht, kann die Seite nicht mehr aktualisiert werden. Du musst entweder den Query optimiern, sodass er schneller ausgeführt wird, oder den Constraint ganz entfernen.
Ah Mist, hab ich fast befürchtet. Ich hab ihn jetzt erstmal auskommentiert.
Hello! I would like to ask your help. In the past weeks, I finished User:Pasleim/projectmerge/huwiki-enwiki and huwiki-dewiki. Please, take a look at the second one, especially at Hnefatafl. Furthermore, I noticed that huwiki-svwiki has a lot of items about the same subjects, however, their number is too huge for I can merge them one-by-one. Is it possible that I can merge them at the same time (with a tool, for example)?
PS: I found this project very useful, thank you very much! :)
@Pasleim Could you take a look?
Hey. Thanks for your work on these maintenance lists. I had a look at it and moved some sitelinks around.
To merge many items at the same time, you can have a look at Help:QuickStatements. You will need to reformat the projectmerge lists to use QuickStatements and you should still have a look at each item you are going to merge to pevent errors.
I successfully merged what I wanted: thanks to you, these svwiki and huwiki articles are not alone anymore. I think we can mark this topic as resolved. :)
DeltaBot is adding the same property 3 or 4 times
There are quite a number of triple and four times edits by now from DeltaBot:
and I've the impression DeltaBot is adding continuously for more items the same property four times.
I replied in Topic:Ued6esek6ym4hc5q
Can the query of the items to move be replaced with this? The original query timed out.
Is it possible that Template:Property uses doesn't include lexemes yet?
Would you kindly add ns:146 to the query?