User talk:Succu

From Wikidata
Jump to: navigation, search

Filing cabinet icon.svg Archive
Archive 2016
Archive 2015
Archive 2014
Archive 2013

Contents

FAO Breeds ID[edit]

Hallo Succu,

ich habe deinen Ping leider erst jetzt erhalten...

Ich verstehe den Antrag nicht ganz. Sind die ID-Nummern privat generiert, oder sind die irgendwo wirklich bei der FAO hinterlegt?

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/FAO_2007_genetic_resource_ID

Das Problem mit der FAO-Datenbank ist, dass sie halt einfach nur das wiedergibt, was die Länder melden und selbst keine "eigene" Statistik führen. Um nachzuschauen, ob es eine "Rasse" gibt, dafür scheint sie mir geeignet, allerdings nicht zur Abgrenzung verschiedener "Rassen" voneinander. Es gibt halt Länder, die fassen mehrere in einer Statistik zusammen oder verstehen etwas anderes unter dem gleichen Namen. Da ist immer auch ein wenig mehr Recherche gefragt...

Das beste Werk, dass ich international für Rinder/Esel/Schweine/Ziegen/Schafe kenne, ist Mason's World Dictionary of Livestock Breeds, Types and Varieties, das zuletzt von Valerie Porter überarbeitet wurde und nun als The Encyclopedia of Livestock Breeds and Breeding von Valerie Porter und Lawrence Alderson herausgegeben wurde. Die Google-Vorschauen sind recht vielversprechend.

Das habe ich gerade gestern auch noch als LitStip beantragt und wurde auch gleich genehmigt. Wenn es zuerst zu dir dir gehen sollte, um zu schauen, wie man die Einträge am Besten in Wikidata einpflegen kann, habe ich auch nix dagegen. Herkunft und Ursprungsrassen (wenn aus Kreuzungen hervorgegangen) sollten jedenfalls auch immer angegeben sein. Auch alternative Namen.

Liebe Grüße
PigeonIP (talk) 08:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Leider kann ich nichts weiter dazu sagen. Ich hatte dich damals angepingt, da ich weiß, dass du dich dafür interessierst. Das Angebot mit dem Buch ist nett gemeint, aber es würde mir nichts nützen. Gruß --Succu (talk) 11:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Bin im Moment halt leider nur sehr sporadisch in den Projekten unterwegs und die pings verlieren sich dann leider...
Die ID schein jedenfalls nicht wirklich sinnvoll.
Was anderes: das Australische (verwilderte) Kamel ist ein Taxon? https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1568770 --PigeonIP (talk) 16:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done Wurde korrigiert. --PigeonIP (talk) 14:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

ping: Wikidata:Forum#Schweinedurcheinander

schau bitte auch da mal kurz vorbei ;) --PigeonIP (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Tygr[edit]

Why? It's antivandal syndrome? Tiger is engandered, critical engandered two subspecies! OJJ (talk) 08:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Be more carefull when editing Wikidata. Ohrožený druh (Q3504152) is an album. --Succu (talk) 08:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry. OK?--OJJ (talk) 11:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly the value you changed. BTW: note the reference. --Succu (talk) 12:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Mistake was there. I wrote message for user on cswiki. --OJJ (talk) 13:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Question mark[edit]

Your question mark is reasonable, but the en / ru and be articles were about a person in ancient Greek mythology. Thank you, I am now putting them in a separate object, as it should have been. --FocalPoint (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. --Succu (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Re: Agalinis acuta[edit]

Hi, Succu. I note that while most other databases list Agalinis acuta as the accepted name for this species, ITIS lists Agalinis acuta as a non-accepted synonym for Agalinis decemloba. However, the USDA Plants Database in turn lists Agalinis decemloba as a synonym for Agalinis obtusifolia. Do you have an opinion on which is more recent and more authoritative? --Rrburke (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Looks like that in the paper A sequential approach using genetic and morphological analyses to test species status: The case of United States federally endangered Agalinis acuta (Orobanchaceae) from 2011 it was proposed to include Agalinis acuta under Agalinis decemloba. Probably this is the source for the taxonomic opinion given in ITIS. Unfortunately USDA offers no sources at all. So I can'n offer an opinon. Why do you ask? --Succu (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
What is the threshold at which it is appropriate to merge items when one is listed as a synonym? --Rrburke (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Items with different taxon names (besides misspellings) shouldn't be merged. We need them to express that they are synonyms. Move the sitelinks instead. --Succu (talk) 14:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]

  1. This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
  2. Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

Why didn't you ping me to say there was a better way?[edit]

For species there is clearly a need for better explanation about merging, and about retention. It would have been good if you could have pinged me and educated me of the better way, rather than to find them reverted (weirdly, I didn't get a notification just tripped over the fact of the reverts). I could have kept going that way for a while! So I am noting that we keep the old names even though there are not wikilinks.

Also how far does this sort of methodology extend? People and places don't get this treatment, so the logic is not clear. Some clear examples would also be useful.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Addendum. It might also be useful to give "merge guidance" at User:Pasleim/projectmerge about this and about other specific points of difference.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Usually I clean up the mess and then tell a user that something is wrong. Brya gave you the short information different names: keep them separate so I did not repeated this. Wikidata:WikiProject Taxonomy/Tutorial is not about merging, but maybe it helps to understand. --Succu (talk) 09:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
That was where I mucked up an genus/species, and wasn't more informative from my perspective. I have always found that pointing to the right way, rather than saying that you are wrong is generally more beneficial. The tutorial is a first principles and technical approach, and it would be improved with a section like "I found two I think are the same, what do I do?"  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
(ec)I didn't see Brya's revert nor the reason (not appearing in my notifications (still)). Can I say that from my perspective that the label "keep them separate" is not particularly helpful nor informative, maybe a variation like "different names: synonyms maintained" is more informative. My reasoning is do we keep each common name for a tree too? Each variation separately?  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes merges are correct, because the species was misspelled in enwiki. --Succu (talk) 10:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it is just hard to tell from diffs <shrug>, so just easier to revert and redo. I also had a series of new ones from enWP that could have been better matched prior to creation.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Merging Giardia intestinalis and Giardia lamblia[edit]

Hello, I am quite new to Wikipedia. Giardia intestinalis and Giardia lamblia are the same species and I am to trying to link Giardia intestinalis pages available in {fr, de, gal, slo} to the Giardia lamblia pages available in {en, es, it...} by using the Special:MergeItems tool. Looks like you are reverting my changes for some reasons: may I ask you what is the best way to proceed? Thanks!  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by ‎Gruxgrux (talk • contribs).

According to NCBI Giardia lamblia (Q155630) is treated as a synonym of Giardia intestinalis (Q10289451). We do not merge subjective synonyms. I added taxon synonym (P1420) to Giardia intestinalis. --Succu (talk) 12:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Tylecodon hirtifolius[edit]

Hallo Succu,

alles Gute noch im neuen Jahr. Könntest Du bitte den Schreibfehler fixen. Der Eintrag hier zu Tylecodon hirtifolium ist falsch. --Michael w (talk) 09:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Michael, dir natürlich auch. Ist erledigt. Siehe Tylecodon hirtifolius (Q17759692). Gruß --Succu (talk) 09:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Danke Dir. --Michael w (talk) 10:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Synonym is sub-species of another[edit]

Firstly, if you would prefer these conflicts put somewhere else, then please let me know where to put the harder cases.

None of the Wikipedia articles refer to sub-species names.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

The natural place for such questions is Wikidata:WikiProject Taxonomy. So others could participate. BTW: GBIF is a data aggregator and not a taxonomic resource. For plants a better source is GRIN. Rhamnus californica (Q9068689) is the basionym of Frangula californica (Q15539781). I moved all the sitelinks to the latter item. --Succu (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Dogs[edit]

Hello! For the OpenStreetMap key "dog" see: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:Dog It is used 7269 times in the OSM database by 1089 users: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/dog --Reclus (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Reclus: A sign depicting a creature is a different concept than the creature itself. So I think this addition is not correct. Probably you have to create new items for this. But I'm not familar with OSM. --Succu (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
The OSM key "dog" is not for a sign. It is for information regarding dogs at a place. Examples: a bookshop, dogs alloweddog parka butcher, dogs not allowed --Reclus (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
A sign may give the same information, but a sign is an object and the OSM key "dog" is not for signs but for dogs at a place. --Reclus (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
OK, it's a tag and as that something like our properties. I think this general intergration needs broader discussion at least at Wikidata:OpenStreetMap. --Succu (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Run a bot for P373 and P935[edit]

Hello Succu,
Who could I ask for a bot run?
My idea:

We need this because hundreds of items are linked to wikicommons without any Commons category (P373) nor Commons gallery (P935).
Best cLiné1 (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll answer at Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Taxonomy#Run_a_bot_for_P373_and_P935. --Succu (talk) 17:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello
Strangely your bot missed some entries: Category:Capuloidea, Category:Lycaena candens, Category:Manicina, Category:Muschampia proteides, Category:Phallomycetidae, Category:Polyceroidea
I can't see the pattern
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 12:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
The bot run was restricted to items with taxon name (P225). Some of your examples are tagged as instance of (P31)=taxon (Q16521). I've made a query where I got five or six more items, which I fixed manually. Items tagged with instance of (P31)=Wikimedia category (Q4167836) have a lot hits, but I don't know which of them are related to taxa. Regards --Succu (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for investigating.
Naively, I would say that any item with a link to a wikicommons category can have a Commons category (P373) + any item with a link to a wikicommons gallery can have a Commons gallery (P935).
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 08:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Categories for species[edit]

Hello,
You are aware of the problem in wikicommons about species and wikidata: wikicommons has species categories and species gallery. But wikipedias have no species categories. So currently there is only one taxon item per species. Conclusion: most wikicommons species category have no wikidata items!
Someone told me that we needed to create category item for all species.
Is that true ? I seems a lot of work.
I was waiting/hoping for another technical solution.
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 10:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi! Essentially I do not work with categories here, so I don't know exactly how the interconnection between Commons and Wikidata works and if all the problems from the past are resolved. Sorry. --Succu (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Looks like some people do so: no label (Q28530012). --Succu (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I suppose the current convention is to have 2 items: one for species and one for category. --Infovarius (talk) 12:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Merge[edit]

Hi Succu, I see that you have merged no label (Q28530156) (oxygen atom) into oxygen (Q629) (oxygen). I think these two items are different, as the former described an atom of the element oxygen while the latter describes the element itself. We also have this separation with hydrogen atom (Q6643508) and hydrogen (Q556). —Wylve (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you mean no label (Q28530156) is intended to denote every single oxygen atom in our universe (hence P31)? --Succu (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes. —Wylve (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
This is new to me. So we can call every single oxygen atom in our universe by name? --Succu (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure where you are getting at, but whether we have the ability to name every single oxygen atom is irrelevant to whether it can be represented in a schema. —Wylve (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
So how water (Q283) should be modeled? --Succu (talk) 22:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I do not see any problem with water (Q283) except that has part (P527) in there should refer to having one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atom (Q6643508). It does not make sense to claim that a water molecule consists of two hydrogen elements. —Wylve (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Is it fine with you that I revert the merge? —Wylve (talk) 12:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
No. --Succu (talk) 12:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
May I know the reason why an oxygen atom is deemed to be the same entity as oxygen the element? —Wylve (talk) 12:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Water constists of water molecules. A water molecule in turn consists of two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen. I don't think we should mix the macroscopic with the microscopic view. --Succu (talk) 13:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
The issue is that "macroscopic" water is "microscopic" water. Such differentiation does not exist. Water does not consist of water molecules, water is nothing but water molecules. And returning to the merge, how is this relevant to the element-atom distinction regarding oxygen? —Wylve (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
If you don't want to distinguish the macroscopic from the microscopic view than there is no need for this item. --Succu (talk) 14:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
The difference between an element and an atom is not the same as the macroscopic-microscopic distinction you proposed. An atom is, to IUPAC, a particle characterising an element. In other words, it is not identical to an element. According to IUPAC again, element has two definitions. The element I am describing here is definition 1. "Element" is in the sense of definition 2 is already represented by simple substance (Q2512777). So it is only logical to say that chemical element (Q11344) must represent IUPAC definition 1 of element. —Wylve (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm aware that a chemical element (Q11344) represents all nuclide (Q108149) with the same number of proton (Q2294). --Succu (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

If you have that understanding, then the corollary would be that oxygen (Q629) is a species of oxygen atoms (no label (Q28530156) before merge), not the species itself. Therefore elemental oxygen and individual oxygen atoms are not the same entity and warrant two items. —Wylve (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I claimed nowhere that the element oxygen the same as an individual oxygen atom. Buit I doubt the construct is usful. Your "oxygen atom" class could be described as a collection of all (3-4) nuclids with Z=8. What properties should it have (weight, radius, ...) and how would you model the the relationship to the element? --Succu (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

SuccuBot creating duplicate species items[edit]

It looks like SuccuBot is creating duplicate species items due to synonyms. For example, it created Colonus puerperus (Q27504517) even though Thiodina puerpera (Q2713802) already existed (under the species' old name Thiodina puerpera). This can be avoided by looking up a unique ID beforehand (such as ITIS, EoL, or Freebase) and searching Wikidata for items that already have the same ID. Note that the Global Biodiversity Information Facility provides separate IDs for every name, so it is not a reliable source for preventing duplicate species items. Kaldari (talk) 21:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for yor advice, but your suggestions are not helpful. I cleared up the mess you created and added Attus puerperus (Q28659948) as original combination (P1403). --Succu (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
That doesn't seem like a good solution. If we put en:Colonus puerperus under Colonus puerperus (Q27504517) and fr:Thiodina puerpera under Thiodina puerpera (Q2713802), they will no longer be interwiki linked even though they are the same species. How do you suggest we address that? Kaldari (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
You removed sitelink. We keep the sitelinks of objective synonyms together. --Succu (talk) 07:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
In that case, I will move them all to the currently accepted name (even though all but one of them use the older name). Kaldari (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

A last one?[edit]

Hello

There is also Q21371236. Will you also change it to Aphodius charmonius?

Regards Chaoborus (talk) 08:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. --Succu (talk) 08:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

has role[edit]

Not one comment on the property proposal you pointed to mentions the matter of verb conjugation at all. Come back with a real reason why the justification in my edit summary is flawed, instead of edit warring. --Swpb (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Nonsens. It's a naming convention (has ABC). If you want to change the english label discuss this at project chat. --Succu (talk) 15:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I've never seen such a consensus on this project (I know of dozens of properties that don't follow it, in any case), and I have started a discussion. Between edit warring and using words like "nonsens" (sic), you're not going to have a good time. Act like an adult, please - some of us know the standards of behavior here and don't mess around with folks who ignore them. --Swpb (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
It's a naming convention widly used in ontology design. See has part (P527), has quality (P1552), has cause (P828) and a lot more. --Succu (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
There is, again, no consensus to that effect on this project, and as many properties that don't adhere as those that do, as you must be aware. --Swpb (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Nouns in German[edit]

edit.

English and Russian labels are only capitalize proper nouns (Homo sapiens, Лондон, Массачусетс), but not classes (human, rabbit, русский язык, штат).

Help:Label/de - is different from other agreements (Help:Label/ru); I'm not able to read German without a dictionary. d1g (talk) 08:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Then do not edit german labels! --Succu (talk) 10:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Meanwhile I added a paragraph about labels in German at Help:Label. d1g (talk) 05:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Notice[edit]

Wikidata:Project chat#‎Agreement to add scientific names of taxons as labels. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey[edit]

(Sorry to write in Engilsh)

Q262560[edit]

What is there?! Phataginus tetradactyla = Manis tetradactyla = vulnerable!!! OJJ (talk) 12:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Not necessarily, since the IUCN evaluates taxon concepts. In this case one labled as Phataginus tetradactyla (Q28173098). Under this name the taxon is regarded as vailid for some years now. We map ids to the item that contains the corresponding taxon name (P225). Then there is a constraint that links IUCN conservation status (P141) and IUCN taxon ID (P627) together. Your addition violated that constraint, so I removed it. To fix the issue I moved all sitelinks from Manis tetradactyla (Q262560) to Phataginus tetradactyla (Q28173098). --Succu (talk) 13:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Definitely not saying[edit]

Hi. I was definitely not saying that you had any sort of disorder, and I definitely did not believe that I worded it in any such way to make that accusation. I do see that there are local uses and expressions that take a different emphasis, and sometimes it is hard to predict that difference from one's everyday conversational language across the globe. If it was taken that way then my apologies. I don't go out of my way to upset people in an attempt to win an argument :-/ I much prefer to try to utilise reason.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Item to be delete[edit]

In RFD there are one or more item proposed for the deletion created by you. If you do not agree you can participate in the debate --ValterVB (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

My first take was Acroscyphus N.Kitag. (1984) non Lév. (1846) (Q17298430). So why should this be deleted ValterVB? --Succu (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Because the sitelink was deleted and no source in item say that Q17298430 is the same of Q17298425. But the discussion must keep in RFD not in your talk. --ValterVB (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Please explain your algorithm ValterVB, especially when a taxon name is missing WD:N. --Succu (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
No algorithm, but when I don't find source that say the Q17298430 is a taxon, I don't see reson to keep the item. But please talk about this in RFD, is useful for all and admin that will delete item can know all the fact about these item. --ValterVB (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I doubt your massive bulk deletions at Wd:RFD are hand made... --Succu (talk) 22:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I use SPARQL and API to generate the list, then I add the item in RFD and in user talk "by hand" (copy and past) or you mean something of different? --ValterVB (talk) 08:41, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

About Hylotelephium telephium[edit]

You are right. Now I see that there are Q1327535 (Hylotelephium telephium) and Q13390371 (Sedum telephium). I think this items should be merged. --Bff (talk) 09:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I moved all sitelinks to Hylotelephium telephium (Q1327535). --Succu (talk) 10:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
But in http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl1.1/record/kew-2488984 Sedum telephium L. is an accepted name, and Hylotelephium telephium (L.) H.Ohba is a synonym of Sedum telephium L. --Bff (talk) 08:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
The Plant List (Q625817) is not a reliable source. According to Sukkulenten-Lexikon. Crassulaceae (Dickblattgewächse) (Q13427103) p.143 the species belongs to Hylotelephium. --Succu (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

For Bot: ‎Virus Taxonomy: 2016 Release[edit]

  1. Important news: ICTV Master Species List 2016 v1.3 (Q29000566) & Bunyavirales (Q29000551).
  2. Update NCBI Taxonomy ID (P685): id=11593 ∈ Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever nairovirus (Q24757193), id=11593 ∉ no label (Q4112119). --VladXe (talk) 05:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I will have a look. --Succu (talk) 06:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Done, VladXe. An open task is to connect renamed taxa to their earlier name via replaced synonym (for nom. nov.) (P694). --Succu (talk) 06:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

For Bot: ‎Virus Taxonomy: 2017 Release[edit]

  1. Important news: ICTV Master Species List 2017 v1.0 (Q51526638) & Ortervirales (Q51526792).
  2. Attention: Ortervirales (Q51526792) = DsDNA-RT virus (Q3754200) + single-stranded positive-sense RNA virus (Q9094482). --VladXe (talk) 07:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Wildflowers of Israel ID (P3746)[edit]

Hey. How did you create a new catalog in Mix'n'match? Thanks--Mikey641 (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

No idea, never did it. --Succu (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh. I thought it was you because you added the statement about mixnmatch.Thanks anyways.--Mikey641 (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

About Sedum spurium[edit]

I see that there are Q13377730 (Sedum spurium) and Q780123 (Phedimus spurius). I think this items should be merged. --Bff (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Not merged, Bff, sitelinks have to be moved. In this case from Sedum spurium (Q13377730) to Phedimus spurius (Q780123) - at least according to my opinion. --Succu (talk) 21:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Your revert[edit]

care to explain why that is appropriate?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by MechQuester (talk • contribs).

Mind to explain your edit war? --Succu (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Curious[edit]

How is this a banned user? MechQuester (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

This one, globally banned user under his real name and... --Succu (talk) 21:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Ichthyosporea und Mesomycetozoea[edit]

Diese beiden Namen beschreiben das gleiche Taxon. Siehe hierzu auch Adl et al.: The Revised Classification of Eukaryotes, 2012, Seite 437. --Eulenspiegel1 (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Mesomycetozoea wird dort als Synonym zu Ichthyosporea aufgefasst. In der Orignalpublikation sind es zwei voneinander verschiedene Klassen. --Succu (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Ich kann nur das Abstract der Originalpublikation lesen. Aber dort wird von einer neuen Gruppe gesprochen, die als DRIP Klade, Ichthyosporea und Mesomycetozoea bezeichnet wird. Das heißt, auch bei Mendoza gibt es nur eine Gruppe, die unterschiedliche Namen hat. --Eulenspiegel1 (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Das ist der richtige Weg die beiden unterschiedlichen taxonomischen Konzepte zu verbinden. Hierin sind entliche Fehler enthalten. Vllt. schaust du dich erst einmal ein wenig um, wie wir die Dinge hier modellieren. --Succu (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Merging of kingdom and realm[edit]

Why did you merge kingdom (Q28050776) with realm (Q1250464)? Realm is a wider concept, that includes kingdoms, sultanates, tsardoms, emarates, etc.. --Arctic.gnome (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The en-label was "kingdom". If this was a mistake then please revert. --Succu (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Same taxon[edit]

Hello Succu, Taxa Wallowaconchidae (Q18708805) and no label (Q29413913) have a slightly different spelling. Might the first be a misspelling? It is lacking any refs and the incoming link suggests the spelling of the second. Could you have a look? Best regards, Lymantria (talk) 12:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I corrected the typo at dewiki and merged the items. Regards --Succu (talk) 12:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Lymantria (talk) 15:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

TAXREF v10.0[edit]

Hi Succu,

There is a new version of TAXREF (Q26924544): https://inpn.mnhn.fr/telechargement/referentielEspece/taxref/10.0/menu

I don't know how much it's different from TAXREF v9.0 (Q26936509) (that you done with your bot) but there is a file named "TAXREF_CHANGES.txt".

TAXREF is updated every year. Should we update in Wikidata every year too?

Tubezlob (🙋) 19:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Tubezlob. Yes I know, they informed me a while ago, but I really forgot it. To much to sort out here. I will have a closer look... --Succu (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! Tubezlob (🙋) 18:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Hey Tubezlob. With a little bit delay - sorry for that - my bot is now adding IDs and references for version 10.0. With a next run version 11.0 will follow. --Succu (talk) 22:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi Succu, vielen Dank for your essential and great job! Tubezlob (🙋) 09:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Q132487 and Q29574600[edit]

Hi,

There seems to be quite a mix between Eocarcharia dinops (Q132487) and Eocarcharia (Q29574600). Could you check the interwikilinks, base on the title, I guess that most of them need to be moved from Eocarcharia dinops (Q132487) to Eocarcharia (Q29574600). The labels on Eocarcharia dinops (Q132487) should be corrected too. Could you take a look?

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 11:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

It's a monotypic taxon. In my opinion the sitelinks should then allways placed at the species item. --Succu (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Just a question[edit]

Where should it be archived to? MechQuester (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata:Requests_for_permissions/RfA/2017. --Succu (talk) 18:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

P585[edit]

Hi, point in time (P585) verfolgt derzeit parallel zwei Zwecke: Zum einen gibt sie an, wann ein Ereignis stattgefunden hat, dann ist "Zeitpunkt" ein sinnvolles Label. Sie wird aber auch genutzt, um den Stand einer Aussage zu definieren, zum Beispiel bei Leistungsdaten von Sportlern oder bei der Einwoherzahl einer Stadt etc. pp. Daher ist der Zusatz "Stand" im Label wichtig, sonst führt die Anwendung zu Missverständnissen. Die Ursache des Problems liegt IMO darin, dass diese Eigenschaft parallel für zwei Zwecke genutzt wird, wo zwei parallele Properties von Beginn an sinnvoller gewesen wären. Ich habe hier eine Diskussion dazu gestartet, um das Problem hoffentlich bei der Wurzel packen zu könenn: point in time vs. last update. Grüße, Yellowcard (talk) 10:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi! War mir nicht wirklich bewußt, dass die Eigenschaft ursprünglich als as of erstellt wurde. Solche Umwidmungen sind höchst ärgerlich. Mal schaun was im Project chat rauskommt. Gruß --Succu (talk) 13:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Empty value for taxon rank (P105)[edit]

Re your revert, forgive me if I'm being a newbie, but what's the purpose in having a third taxon rank (P105) that's empty? Thanks – McDutchie (talk)

It denotes that the taxon is treated as a rankless clade. --Succu (talk) 07:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
How is it rankless when it's got two ranks actually defined? Note that it's the third one that's got an empty value.
This also causes a Lua error in ia:Module:Wikidata which was copied from en:Module:Wikidata (see the infobox in ia:Placentarios for the effect). – McDutchie (talk) 07:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
For some background information please have a look at Nomenclature and placental mammal phylogeny (Q21093631). If your LUA module produces an uncatched error, than this should be fixed. Setting "no value" for taxon rank (P105) means "no rank" in our data model. --Succu (talk) 08:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Once again, it is taxon rank (P105) that has the empty value, not parent taxon (P171). It would make complete sense if parent taxon (P171) had one empty value as you specify, but that is not the case here. It is taxon rank (P105) that has three values, the third of which is empty. Please examine Placentalia (Q25833) to verify this. Neither your responses nor the reference you provided make any sense of this. – McDutchie (talk) 13:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Fixed P171 → P105 in my answer. --Succu (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I never understood this, either. We could have "clade" as rank, and as clades are rankless, this should be clear enough? - Brya (talk) 10:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
You can not state clade (Q713623) instance of (P31) taxonomic rank (Q427626). --Succu (talk) 14:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
It seems that pretty much anything can be filled in in taxon rank (P105). Taxoboxes in many Wikipedias use "clade" as a rank. - Brya (talk) 16:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but this makes the statement not true. Enwiki uses e.g. node in taxoboxes too. --Succu (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
"True" or "no true" depends on how things are set up. - Brya (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
It's not a philosophical question, but a matter of our data model. PhyloCode (Q1189395) is not rank based. --Succu (talk) 18:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
How does that matter? The PhyloCode is not in effect, and the clades in Wikidata are not named according to it. - Brya (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
It's a matter of the consistency of our data model (forgot consistency above). Nodes (and clades of course) are part of the PhyloCode that's all. And please do not "twist" this part of this thread. It's about understanding taxon rank (P105) = novalue. --Succu (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
There were clades long before a PhyloCode was being considered. The draft-PhyloCode is just that: a draft. Most likely, there will still be clades long after the PhyloCode is forgotten. And indeed, I don't understanding "taxon rank (P105) = novalue". - Brya (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
The range of taxon rank (P105) is defined by this result set. If it's not in it use no value. If the rank is unknown use unknown value. --Succu (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Empty items by you or your bot[edit]

Hey Succu, there are occasionally “empty” items which have been created by you or your bot (such as Q24796908, but there are some more). Did they somehow got lost, or can they be deleted? Regards, MisterSynergy (talk) 07:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi! Sometimes I forget to check my error logs. Probably they should be merged or enhanced. Do you have a list? --Succu (talk) 14:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Not a list, but I stumbled upon a couple of them while browsing through empty items. Until now I just proceeded to the next item without deletion of your items, but I will just report them here in future (I am not familiar with your field of work, thus I don’t dare to merge by myself). Schönes Wochenende! —MisterSynergy (talk) 14:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Q28792231, Q25185408, Q28806333; likely some more to follow. —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC) ✓ Done --Succu (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Q22692859, Q23773345, Q23833532, Q23879930MisterSynergy (talk) 21:54, 3 June 2017 (UTC) ✓ Done --Succu (talk) 05:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Two more: Q18337986, Q27043896. Could you also please decide whether Q2214778 should be merged into Q6431230 (or another item)? Thanks, MisterSynergy (talk) 11:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC) ✓ Done an please delete no label (Q2214778) --Succu (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Q28061220. I meanwhile got most items, I guess. —MisterSynergy (talk) 08:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC) ✓ Done and Thx. --Succu (talk) 09:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Q27665136MisterSynergy (talk) 05:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC) ✓ Done --Succu (talk) 06:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Q33135279MisterSynergy (talk) 06:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC) ✓ Done --Succu (talk) 06:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Brassica oleracea var. capitata f. acuta (Q7225623)[edit]

About your reverts on Brassica oleracea var. capitata f. acuta (Q7225623).
You want to split taxon (Q16521) and vegetable (Q11004) ?
Have 2 items ?
Because currently Brassica oleracea var. capitata f. acuta (Q7225623) is both (a vegetable (Q11004) and a taxon (Q16521) of rank form (Q279749)).
Regards Liné1 (talk) 11:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi! Do you have any evidence the form Brassica oleracea var. capitata f. acuta was ever formally published? --Succu (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
No more than some hits on google.But sources for forma are rare. Liné1 (talk) 14:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Die Brassica oleracea-Gruppe does not mentions this form. --Succu (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Distictis ‘Rivers’ (Q19277201)[edit]

Hello,
About your revert on Distictis ‘Rivers’ (Q19277201) (your revert).
What is the issue with my taxon name (P225)?
Regards Liné1 (talk) 11:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Liné1. The taxon name Amphilophium x 'Rivers' is not valid. First of all we use the multiplication sign (×) for hybrids. If this taxon is a cultivar then the multiplication sign has to be omitted (see International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (Q941761)). The taxon in question is probably the cultivar Distictis ‘Mrs Rivers’ (=Distictis laxiflora × Distictis buccinatoria, syn: Distictis ‘Rivers’). BTW: hybrid (Q42621) is not a taxon rank. Regards --Succu (talk) 13:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I understand that the name is not correct.
Maybee taxon name (P225)="Distictis 'Rivers'" with taxon rank (P105)=cultivar (Q4886).
Or taxon name (P225)="Distictis buccinatoria x D. laxiflora" with taxon rank (P105)=nothospecies (Q1306176).
What do you prefer ?
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 14:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
The first virsion. BTW: we have parent(s) of this hybrid (P1531) to express Distictis laxiflora × Distictis buccinatoria. --Succu (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Typha (Q145707)[edit]

are located in/near swamps

commons:File:Typha-cattails-in-indiana.jpg

They also grow in highland areas which is flooded during rain.

Why not to use location (P276) here? d1g (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Because we have habitat (P2974). location (P276) would cause constraint violations. --Succu (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Block[edit]

You were asked to stop commenting on that discussion on the Administrators' Noticeboard with a warning that you would be blocked otherwise. You continued commenting there anyway, the comments were not helpful and seemed designed to be awkward and provoke people, therefore I've blocked you for a day. Also, I expect you already know, but deliberately switching to a language the other person does not speak is not something that someone does when they are trying to be cooperative or helpful. - Nikki (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Please give a diff Nikki! --Succu (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Special:Diff/504360577 for example. - Nikki (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Relates to „deliberately switching to a language the other person does not speak is not something that someone does when they are trying to be cooperative or helpful“, Nikki: Did I? --Succu (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
You switched to writing in German when I warned you. That seemed quite deliberate. You need to realize that although your words might seem perfectly fine to you, they're having the effect of aggravating the situation in question, and that is not helpful.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Du warst nicht gefragt! --Succu (talk) 06:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Okay, let me be a bit more explicit. You can either request an unblock with {{unblock}}, or you can wait for the block to expire. Anything else is grounds for revoking your talk page access or extending your block.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Und noch eine Drohung auf Grundlage einer Regel die es hier nicht gibt. Die Gepflogenheiten der englischsprachigen Wikipedia sind hier nicht anwendbar. --Succu (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
by Jasper Deng: I ask you to not comment here anymore. (at AN) --Succu (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Nikki: "but deliberately switching to a language the other person does not speak is not something that someone does when they are trying to be cooperative or helpful" Wikimedia:Assume good faith (Q4663356) Succu had his/her DE-N badge since 2013. We don't have that many rules as English Wikipedia nor we really should accept every esse. d1g (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@D1gggg: To be clear: The block was not about which language Succu was writing in and I'm sorry if what I wrote gave the wrong impression. People can write in whichever language they want to. However, the language someone chooses to write in can send its own message, whether the person intends it to or not. That's especially true when suddenly switching languages. That's why I wrote what I did. - Nikki (talk) 21:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Nikki, dein Sperrgrund war „continuing unhelpful discussion on AN despite being warned”. Seit wann ist die Begründung nicht hilfreich hier Sperrgrund? --Succu (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Man bekommt eine Warnung, weil ein Administrator das Verhalten als störend empfindet. Wenn man trotzdem weiter macht, ist es normal eine kurzzeitige Sperrung zu benutzen, um das störende Verhalten zu unterbrechen. Es gibt ja natürlich keine Regel "man darf keine unhilfreichen Kommentare schreiben", es hängt von der Situation ab. Die Kommentare in diesem Fall würden die Situation (bzw. den Streit) schlimmer machen, statt die Diskussion zum Thema weiter zu bringen. Ich hätte mich vielleicht beim Sperrgrund besser ausdrücken können aber das kann ich jetzt nicht ändern. (Entschuldigung, ich hatte in den letzten Tagen keine Zeit, vorher zu antworten) - Nikki (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
„weil ein Administrator das Verhalten als störend empfindet“. Du warst als sperrender Admin Nr. zwei. Der mich verwarnende Admin hat m.E. nicht deeskalierend eingegriffen, eher im Gegenteil. Und ein Tag ist in diesem Fall nicht gerade eine Kurzzeitsperre. Welche meiner Äußerungen empfandest du als sperrwürdig? Danke und Gruß --Succu (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

constraint on P225[edit]

How do you intended to edit?--GZWDer (talk) 17:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I removed a wrong qualifier value (Come On Over (Q522293)) and got an edit conflict. The result looks strange. --Succu (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
GZWDer, please check that all added values have at least taxon name (P225). --Succu (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Chřástal[edit]

Nonsens, read it. --OJJ (talk) 09:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Please see Hypotaenidia wakensis (Q28065127). --Succu (talk) 09:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
But there isn't status neither interwiki and other! On cs article status is missing. OJJ (talk) 09:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
It's not unusual that an item which bears the information about IUCN conservation status (P141) has no sitelinks. The IUCN evaluates taxon concepts and labels them with a prefered taxon name (P225). Other taxonomic authorities (like IOC or Clements ) can disagree (or disagreed in the past). Probably the way cswiki makes use of this property should be improved by using original combination (P1403) and taxon synonym (P1420). --Succu (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Succu, we employed arbitrary access with original combination (P1403) and taxon synonym (P1420) and it works fine. One of the exceptions is Q182761 where IUCN was removed but was not added to any other taxon. What is the preferred action for that taxon? --Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 15:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
That's great news. Thanks. I created the missing item Bonasa bonasia (Q37312414). So I hope it should work now. BTW: for plants you have to use basionym (P566) instead of original combination (P1403). --Succu (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Can you think of a way of tracking Wikipedia articles which fail to display IUCN status although they are in fact listed by IUCN yet under a different name? To me this is a big challenge. --Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Can we work together on a Botanical project?[edit]

It is much easier when we do work together and see how to ensure that it will work well. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

You are talking in riddles, GerardM. --Succu (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
I send you an email. I did not get a response. I am involved in a project with huge botanical resources. Having this work well without too much upset will help us all. It is why I aske(ed) for a quiet talk first. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but I didn't got an email. --Succu (talk) 06:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Today I got a notification GerardM‬ hat dir eine E-Mail gesendet, but received no email. Not sure why. --Succu (talk) 14:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Same taxon?[edit]

Hi Succu, merging Ovia procurva (Q33126512) (linked to w:it:Ovia procurva) and Pardosa procurva (Q2462229) (w:fr:Ovia procurva) is not possible since they refer to each other via original combination (P1403) and subject has role (P2868)=protonym (Q14192851) (relation which I fail to understand...) Could you please take care of figuring if the French article should rather be moved along with the Italian one? Thanks -- LaddΩ chat ;) 23:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Laddo. I moved w:it:Ovia procurva to Pardosa procurva (Q2462229). Ovia procurva (Q33126512) was established in 2017 and needs as a very young name some more acceptance. --Succu (talk) 05:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks, I had no clue on that one! -- LaddΩ chat ;) 12:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Labels[edit]

Hi. Can you add all these labels in a single edit? Additionally, when taxon rank (P105) is tribe (Q227936) add please Romanian (ro) label the same as scientific taxon name used for other labels (tribe names usually are not translated in Romanian). --XXN, 11:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

This should be possible. I'll have a look. --Succu (talk) 13:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
@XXN: My two cents: to copy the same label to multiple languages, the best is adding the Label Collector to your common.js page: it adds the tool "VIP's labels" at the end of the left panel and allows changes like this one; less efficient but more flexible, you may activate gadget labelLister (beta version) in your Preferences (an example). -- LaddΩ chat ;) 18:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Celtis ehrenbergiana[edit]

Clean-up needed, thanks to User:Pasleim/projectmerge/frwiki-eswiki: Celtis tala (Q15742470) (es:Celtis ehrenbergiana) and Celtis ehrenbergiana (Q2727396) (fr:Celtis ehrenbergiana). French & Spanish obviously refer to the same taxon, but with different Orders! Only English has two articles for these. Good luck! -- LaddΩ chat ;) 13:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Please see Q156338#P171. ;) --Succu (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Weird! Thanks for taking over. -- LaddΩ chat ;) 16:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Coriobacteridae (Q21447193) and Chroobacteria (Q21213976)[edit]

Hey Succu, are Coriobacteridae (Q21447193) and Chroobacteria (Q21213976) valid items? Thanks, —MisterSynergy (talk) 06:32, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

They are. I added links to List of Prokaryotic names with Standing in Nomenclature (Q6595107). --Succu (talk) 06:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Two more: no label (Q21440679) and Garuda Yakovlev (2004) non Scherer (1969) (Q21439604). —MisterSynergy (talk) 06:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Merged them. --Succu (talk) 06:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

no label (Q21238185), no label (Q21325402), and no label (Q21299332)? (That’s it for today). Thanks and regards, MisterSynergy (talk) 06:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

All were deleted at Wikispecies. We should do the same. --Succu (talk) 07:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I can’t find a deletion discussion for any of the three. Do you know about the reasons? I am not at all used to Wikispecies… —MisterSynergy (talk) 07:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
species:Allohermenias metacritica, species:Sparganopseustis unthicta, species:Promalactis biaenia are probably misspellings. --Succu (talk) 07:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Now done. Thanks for your input. —MisterSynergy (talk) 07:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Q1378754 (es:Eustigmatophyceae) and Q21286593 (fr:Eustigmatophyceae)[edit]

There is a mix-up of "Eustigmatales" and "Eustigmatophyceae" in Eustigmatales (Q1378754) and Eustigmatophyceae (Q21286593) that I do not have the knowledge to settle. Maybe you can give a hand? Thanks -- LaddΩ chat ;) 00:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Done, but not satisfied. --Succu (talk) 17:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Fair; dissatisfied before or after User:PieterJanR worked on these same items? -- LaddΩ chat ;) 20:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Before. For me User:PieterJanR is working along is own „rules“. --Succu (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Parnara guttatus/Parnara guttata[edit]

Hi Succu,

I saw your edits to Parnara guttatus (Q14042354) and Parnara guttata (Q1314537). A discussion about the spelling recently took place at species:Wikispecies:Village_Pump#Parnara_guttatus_or_Parnara_guttata.3F. Could you please voice your opinion there? Thanks! Korg (talk) 11:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Korg, I noticed the discussion afterwards. I don't think WD should share this kind of practice. We have a lot of similar unresolved cases here (see: User:Succu/Spelling/-a, -us). --Succu (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer! Shouldn't a link in Parnara guttata (Q1314537) be also made to Parnara guttatus (Q14042354)? Korg (talk) 16:55, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
What kind of link do you have in mind? --Succu (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I have the impression that the information that Parnara guttata (Q1314537) is also known under the name Parnara guttatus is missing. Of course it could be added as an alias, but since there is the item Parnara guttatus (Q14042354), maybe a link to it should be added (through taxon synonym (P1420)?). I can understand why you added Wikimedia duplicated page (Q17362920), but in the meantime why not keeping the information about the synonymy? Thanks, Korg (talk) 13:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
What apparently is needed is a new property for (deviant) spellings as used by (some) Lepidopterists. - Brya (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Swallowtail butterfly[edit]

The type species is stated in en:Swallowtail butterfly's infobox. Isn't it correct? Paucabot (talk) 11:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

The type genus (Q842832) is Papilio (Q311221). See my edit. --Succu (talk) 11:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

subclasses of natural physical object (Q16686022)[edit]

Can I ask you to stop removing correct top-level P279 claims that affect nearly every object?

1 2

Each fruit is physical object. This is so trivial that nobody need to source this. d1g (talk) 20:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I think your subclassing is not very usefull... --Succu (talk) 20:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
@Succu: what is your suggestion then?
You think that fruits aren't physical objects? Why would you remove from them?
Fruits (and other objects) are used in gathering (Q2991771). d1g (talk) 20:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
So what? gathering (Q2991771) is very strange item. --Succu (

talk) 20:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Succu: I don't have time to repeat my questions to you: "Why would you remove

subject > subclass of (P279) View with SQID < physical object (Q223557) View with Reasonator View with SQID >

from them?"

Why you removed indication about physical objects from organism (Q7239) and similar items? d1g (talk) 20:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

For the same reason because no label (Q29102255) is not very useful in modeling a taxonomy. --Succu (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Do you realize that physical object (Q223557) or sub-classes of it has nothing to do about taxonomy?
Your duty now is to explain how an organism isn't physical object. At least this is what you did with your edits.
Maybe it was a mistake, I don't know. d1g (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
taxonomy (Q7211) is one of the backbones of this project. Do you really want to make all instances/subclasses of organism (Q7239), no label (Q29102814) and biota (Q845214) (..., paintings, countries, stars, buildings) become a subclass of natural physical object (Q16686022)? --Succu (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
This isn't about what I think or you think is useless.
Do you have a better suggestion than:
  1. and
  2. < organism (Q7239) View with Reasonator View with SQID > subclass of (P279) View with SQID < ... >
    and ?
It is evident to me that organism (Q7239) can be though as individual objects. d1g (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Sure a particular organism (Q7239) is an individual object (=instance of (P31)) and should be linked that way as done by human (Q5). --Succu (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Current P279 claims at human (Q5) are not about physical objects.
So it wouldn't follow that she was "physical object" (e.g. real).
Q5 is about social aspects (biographies) right now.
With organism (Q7239) you're right because there is claim
But I prefer direct
+ manifestation of (P1557)
over
d1g (talk) 22:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Mind to use sentences, D1gggg and not templates. Thank you very much. --Succu (talk) 22:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
@D1gggg: look at Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard#Taxonomical_mafia. Succu believes that all taxon items at Wikidata is their property and don't like any other statements except their own. In this question I support adding these P279. --Infovarius (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Nope, I don't! --Succu (talk) 18:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
But your deeds say the opposite. Again: I appreciate your taxonomical job in Wikidata very much, but you have no right to guard these items from improvement tries. You are acting against progress here. --Infovarius (talk) 09:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
@Infovarius: I think we should be able to avoid complexity of (exact muscle or exact rock or exact mineral) by using "natural physical objects".
Yes, these edits are very new and need improvement and further clarification, but all removals should be replaced with equal or better suggestions.
In this case I see strong urgency to prune all inaccuracies, but not strong suggestions or normal edits. d1g (talk) 06:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

STOP[edit]

edit d1g (talk) 04:05, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Please do not shout here. This belongs in the upper part´of the taxonomy. --Succu (talk) 05:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
@Succu: fruits are physical objects and natural.
Taxonomy has nothing to do about it. d1g (talk) 06:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Sigh, it has to do wth taxonomy (Q7211). --Succu (talk) 06:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
To recap how outrageous your nonsense: you were editing culinary item Q 3 3 1 4 4 8 3. d1g (talk) 06:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Another try[edit]

2 days ago you were asked question, maybe you forgot to answer or overlooked it. I will repeat:

Why you removed indication about physical objects from organism (Q7239) and similar items?

d1g (talk) 05:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

See above. --Succu (talk) 05:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
@Succu: "See above" is not appropriate reply. d1g (talk) 06:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Euthemis multivenosa[edit]

Servus! Ich bin gerade über Euthemis multivenosa gestolpert, die laut Wikidata zur Gattung Euthemis in den Ochnaceae gehören soll. Allerdings geht aus dem bei der Art verlinkten Eintrag auf Fossilworks hervor, dass es sich um eine Libelle handelt. Da müsste dann wohl ein neues Datenobjekt für eine fossile Libellengattung Euthemis erstellt werden. Oder? Grüße --Franz Xaver (talk) 08:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Weil's eh hier auch irgendwie dazupasst: Ich hab aus der Gattung Lacunaria den Fossilworks-Eintrag wieder entfernt. Es gibt offenbar auch eine fossile Schneckengattung gleichen Namens. In beiden Fällen war es offenbar so, dass beim Einsatz von SuccuBot (3. Apr 2017) nicht darauf geachtet wurde, dass es möglicherweise gleichlautende Gattungsnamen gibt. Grüße --Franz Xaver (talk) 08:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Die fossile Libellengattung Euthemis hab ich inzwischen angelegt und bei Euthemis multivenosa das übergeordnete Taxon dementsprechend angepasst. Am liebsten würde ich dort den Eintrag von iNaturalist einfach entfernen - der ist irreführend. Die sind dort wohl genau so auf das "Homonym" hereingefallen. --Franz Xaver (talk) 08:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Hallo Franz! Danke fürs finden und fixen. Die Bot-Bearbeitungen sind allerdings über zwei Jahre alt. Damals gab es den Wikidata:SPARQL query service noch nicht und damit war vieles schwieriger handhabbar. Ich kann leider heute nicht mehr nachvollziehen worin damals der Fehler bestand. Fossilworks bietet im Gegensatz zu anderen Datenbanken keine einfache Möglichkeit zu überprüfen, ob ein wissenschaftlicher Name zu den Pflanzen gehört. Ich bin allerdings dabei mich mit dem Thema Fossilworks wieder etwas intensiver zu beschäften, da wir im Bereich der fossilen Taxa erhebliche Lücken habe. In einem ersten Schritt habe ich vor einer Weile geprüft, ab der angegebenen wiss. Name überhaupt zur ID passt.
Das mit den Eintrag von iNaturalist sehe ich leidenschaftslos. Gruß --Succu (talk) 14:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Ich finde, nachdem ich es bisher nicht gekannt habe, Fossilworks recht informativ. Ich sehe aber natürlich schon ein, dass sich ein Bot-Einsatz ad absurdum führt, wenn man die Information dort nicht automatisiert verarbeiten kann. Stimmt, das eigentliche Problem ist schon 2015 entstanden. Das am 3. Apr 2017 war ja nur ein Folgeedit. Ich hab nicht genau hingeschaut und das dann verwechselt. Ich fürchte nur, dass die zwei Fälle, die irrtümlich bei den Ochnaceae gelandet sind, nur die Spitze eines Eisbergs sind. Vielleicht kann man einen Teil der Fälle ausfindig machen, indem man (per Bot?) nach Gattungs-Datenobjekten sucht, die sowohl von Fossilworks als auch von IPNI einen Eintrag haben. Taxa, von denen es keine rezenten Vertreter gibt, sind ja in IPNI nicht enthalten. Es kann natürlich bei rezenten Gattungen auch fossile Vertreter geben, aber dann sollte die Gattung zumindest nicht als fossil taxon (Q23038290) markiert sein. Grüße --Franz Xaver (talk) 14:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Deine Idee lässt sich mit dem oben erwähnten SPARQL query service einfach umsetzen. Allerdings ergibt diese Suche über 300 Gattungen. Wie gesagt, ich bin drann an dem Thema, aber es ist nur eines auf einer langen Liste. Gruß --Succu (talk) 15:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Ja, alle einzeln durchzusehen ist natürlich viel Arbeit, aber Australina (Q8209401), Clarkella (Q5854728), Clypeola (Q2918873), Robinia (Q472943) und Camelina (Q163520) sind jedenfalls auch solche Fälle. Die vier Fälle sind Stichprobenkontrollen auf Verdacht. (Die beiden Brassicaceae-Gattungen kenn ich, da kann ich mir nicht vorstellen, dass es davon Fosssilien gibt.) --Franz Xaver (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Die ersten beiden Fehler habe ich behoben. Die anderen kommen später dran. --Succu (talk) 15:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Gefixt. --Succu (talk) 17:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Danke! Ich mach einmal eine Liste der weiteren Problembären, von vorne beginnend: Acanthonema (Q4059309), Adriana (Q2713431), Aegilops (Q1764888), Agnesia (Q771221), Allophyllum (Q2892914), Aluta (Q4737574), Aurinia (Q3273285) - mit dem Buchstaben A bin ich somit durch. Grüße --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Erledigt. Danke für deine Mithilfe. --Succu (talk) 06:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
"Z" ist durchgesehen. Die Fehlzuweisungen scheinen nur aus einem Botlauf von Mitte Mai 2015 zu stammen. --Succu (talk) 06:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Abfrage mit Datum. --Succu (talk) 06:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Mit Datum ergibt die Abfrage gleich viele Ergebnisse. Buchstabe B: Beaumontia (Q3311674), Beckmannia (Q159068), Becquerelia (Q8245556), Belmontia (Q5725297), Benoistia (Q4890094), Boltonia (Q4940265). Ich hab bei einigen der von dir neu angelegten gleichnamigen Taxa jetzt noch die Fossilworks-IDs nachgetragen. Grüße --Franz Xaver (talk) 08:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Ach so, nein, man muss da das Datum wohl vorher noch selbst eintippen, dass nicht dasselbe herauskommt. --Franz Xaver (talk) 08:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Bei Agnesia (Q38117103) gibt's immer noch ein Problem. Beim Fossil handelt es sich um eine Schnecke, aber die Viecher in sv (ceb, war) sind offenbar rezente Ascidiacea (Q190090). Da besteht wohl ein echtes Homonymen-Problem, wo zuerst einmal geklärt werden muss, welcher von beiden Namen der ältere ist. Laut WoRMS haben wir es bei der Seescheiden-Gattung mit einer orthographische Variante von Agnezia (Q6458288) zu tun und in seiner unübertroffenen Weisheit hat Lsjbot natürlich beide Varianten angelegt. --Franz Xaver (talk) 08:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Für "B" habe ich neue Datenobjekte angelegt. Die Fossilworks-IDs hätte mein Bot heute oder morgen nachgetragen. Aber Danke fürs Hinzufügen. Die geänderte Abfrage listet lediglich das Datum mit auf, wann der Bot die Fossilworks-ID ergänzt hat. Ich wollte nur sehen, ob meine Vermutung richtig ist. Wg. "Agnesia" habe ich formal, d.h. ohne weiter nachzugraben, 'Agnesia' [Michaelsen, 1898] (Q38140805) angelegt und die Sitelinks dorthin verschoben. Gruß --Succu (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Danke! Bezüglich Agnesia ist es wohl so zu gelöst worden, dass Agnezia (Q6458288) ein neuer Name (replacement name) von 'Agnesia' [Michaelsen, 1898] (Q38140805) für die Seescheide ist. In der Botanik käme man allerdings niemals um das Homonymieproblem herum, indem man ein s durch ein z ersetzt. Aber nach dem zoologischen Code mag das gehen – da kann ich mich mit den Gebräuchen nicht gut genug aus. Da muss man vermutlich replaced by (P1366) in die Schlacht werfen, so ähnlich, wie es Brya gerade bei Ouratea densiflora Pilg. (1901) (Q17556455) durchgeführt hat. --Franz Xaver (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Die Probleme aus dem Botlauf von Mitte Mai 2015, die in der obigen Liste auftauchen, sollten gefixt sein. Gruß --Succu (talk) 14:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Fortunella[edit]

Hi, something's wrong here https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q106090&diff=472099749&oldid=455018068 --Termininja (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Termininja! The edit was based on a wrong Fossilworks ID. I created Fortunella (Q38096898) for this. --Succu (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Ok, in this case it is genus of brachiopods. --Termininja (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Anisophyllum[edit]

Hier noch ein Nachtrag zum Buchstaben A: Anisophyllum (Q15711327) Der Fall wird richtig kompliziert - siehe species:Anisophyllum. Es gibt drei botanische Homonyme, nämlich ein Synonym von Euphorbia (Q146567), eins von Anisophyllea (Q1626224), und den ältesten Gattungsnamen von Jacq., der im Wesentlichen rätselhaft bleibt. Auf Tropicos hat diese Gattung offenbar irgendwer bei den Anacardiaceae eingeordnet, was mir plausibel erscheint. Und dann gibt's noch diese fossile Koralle als vierten gleichlautenden Namen. Das derzeit existierende Datenobjekt ist ein Verschnitt aus drei der vier Namen. Den vierten, nämlich Anisophyllum G.Don ex Benth., hätte ich aber jetzt gerade auch noch gebraucht. Ich wollte nämlich bei Anisophyllea grandis (Q4765389) das Basionym ergänzen - siehe species:Anisophyllea grandis. Grüße --Franz Xaver (talk) 15:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Das Interim Register of Marine and Nonmarine Genera (IRMNG) bietet:
  • Anisophyllum A.H. Haworth, 1812 accepted as Euphorbia Linnaeus, 1753
  • Anisophyllum G. Don ex G. Bentham, 1949 accepted as Anisophyllea R. Brown ex Sabine, 1824
  • Anisophyllum Boivin ex Baillon, 1858 accepted as Croton Linnaeus, 1753
  • Anisophyllum N.J. Jacquin, 1763
  • Anisophyllum Lesquereux, 1874 †
  • Anisophyllum Milne-Edwards & Haime, 1850 †
Bei Homonymen innerhalb eines Reichs hat der Bot keine Chance das aufzudröseln. Selbst wenn er die jeweiligen Autorenangaben verwenden würde. Tropicos schert sich leider nicht darum, wie die Namen gemäß IPNI formatiert sein sollten. IPNI selbst hat zahlreich unaufgelöste botanist author abbreviation (P428). Aber das weist du ja selbst. Falls du Muße leg einfach neue Datenobjekte für die Anisophyllum-Varianten an und schau was passiert.
BTW, vllt. kannst du ja mal bei How to link a "taxon item" to the "publication item" where it has been described? vorbeischauen?! Ich hoffe ich komme morgen dazu dort zu antworten. Gruß --Succu (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
OK, Anisophyllum Haw. (1812) (Q38150618) und Anisophyllum (Q38150162) hab ich jetzt angelegt und die diversen Inhalte entflochten. --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect edit[edit]

Hi, this edit is incorrect. A.lanceolata is not the basionym of A. barteri var. angustifolia. The correct basionym is A. lanceolata f. angustifolia, but for some reason I cannot make this change by hand. --Randykitty (talk) 07:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

An error in Tropicos. I created Anubias lanceolata f. angustifolia (Q38570826) and changed the basionym. Thx. --Succu (talk) 07:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Please[edit]

About this revert: go to either http://fossilworks.org/bridge.pl?a=taxonInfo&taxon_no=227616 or http://fossilworks.org/bridge.pl?a=taxonInfo&taxon_no=175533.
Search for "PaleoDB taxon number: ".
You will find 227616.
So there is a bug in SuccuBot.
Regards Liné1 (talk) 15:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Please see 227616: Synonym: Polyphagidae Walker 1868 (taxon 175533) The correct ID is 175533. Synonym IDs are redirected at FW to the "valid" (aka accepted) taxon name. --Succu (talk) 15:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
You are badly interpreting the page
Corydiidae has a (not accepted) synonym: Polyphagidae which has the id 175533
To proove that:
Regards Liné1 (talk) 16:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
We have both Corydiidae (Q21069166) (=227616) and Polyphagidae (Q736346) (=175533). I do not use the UI. I'm using the API. Fw treats Polyphagidae (Q736346) (=175533) as a synonym of Corydiidae (Q21069166) (=227616). --Succu (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Alright, perfect. Thnks Liné1 (talk) 10:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The Cactaceae by Britton and Rose[edit]

Hoi, as you (may) know this book has been rather relevant in the history of the botany of cacti. With the Library of the Botanical Garden of New York we are planning a Wiki project that includes Wikidata Commons Wikipedia maybe Wikisource. The idea is to see how the botanical information that led to this book can be opened to a wider public. So it will include the types, the fieldbooks etc.

For all the species mentioned in the book we want an item, all kinds of associated information is of interest and relevant as well.

In addition to this I have a database I created in Access that I have available again to myself. When you are interested I can see to it that you get it. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I wrote the German article about The Cactaceae, so yes I know. I good starting point would be to check if we have an item for the 420 295 taxa illustrated on the 107 color plates. I don't think I need your database. It would give me the oportunity to implement and test some other ways of referencing the occurence of taxon names in taxonomic literature. Is there any time frame involved? --Succu (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
There is no "need" for you having the database. What it does is show you that I have experience in the subject of taxonomy and it provides a starting point for a conversation on taxonomy and missing properties. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 08:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
As a starting point I created User:Succu/Cactaceae sec. Britton & Rose, 1919–1923, GerardM. It's a draft and needs some proofreading. We are missing around one third of the taxa accepted by them. --Succu (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
@GerardM:Are there any plans from your side, how to proceed? --Succu (talk) 21:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
So far you have shown no interest.. For what it is worth, the book and the cacti are to be the leverage to achieve things. So far you failed to have an interest.. The idea is to get as much material used in the book in the Wikimedia projects, not just Wikidata, including photos of isotypes and references of the isotype to taxon descriptions. The idea is to have better links to the botanical taxonomy world. In my database I have all the publications for them, there is basionym information, there are the author names with references to the individuals.. But hey. you do not need my database. No need to know where I am coming from and no need to establish a mutual vocabulary. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 06:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
So this thread is basicly about your database I'm not interested in and not their work? What a pitty... --Succu (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Looks like I'm on my own... --Succu (talk) 22:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Tropicos[edit]

Hi Succu,

I see you have managed to import basionym-relationships from Tropicos, which is very welcome, and adds much-wanted depth to Wikidata. However, I see you are also importing things like Arum syriacum Blume (1836) (Q38470108) and Arum syriacum (Q38470252) which look basically like nomenclatural junk (this is where The Plant List went wrong). There may come a time when it becomes desirable to have such items, just for the sake of trying to be complete, but for the moment these seem more of a hindrance than anything else.

It would be useful to create items based on import from Tropicos, if these are for basionyms of names that we already have an item for. - Brya (talk) 11:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Brya, yes I want to move on. Normally I do not create a new item if I can sparql an item with taxon name (P225) or Tropicos taxon ID (P960). In this case the second item was created two minutes after the first. So probably ths system was not fast enough for the second SPARQL call. BTW: I fixed two minor issues I found in my code. After the whole run I will do some more sanity checks. --Succu (talk) 11:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
These two items may well be on separate taxa, although it is equally possible that they are not. Since they are isolated names in Tropicos we don't know anything: these may well be names that at some point were published but that everybody ignored. It may also be the same name. They may be nomina nuda. We just don't know: these are pieces of junk in the attic of Tropicos, that at some point in the future may become useful. Or just thrown out, once somebody takes a close look. For the moment Wikidata has no use for them. Only when somebody refers to them in a taxonomic paper will these become "real". - Brya (talk) 13:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I see you have already been creating items for basionyms, so I assume this is all done? What would be really nice is to import authorships from Tropicos, but I guess this is still not possible? - Brya (talk) 16:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
I will do this later from IPNI. But I have to refine the process a little bit. But I think it's hard to avoid errors. :( --Succu (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
IPNI is pretty much the same; it is a nomenclatural database that has lots and lots of stuff that is taxonomically irrelevant. - Brya (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Sikkim pika (Q28185220)[edit]

Hi there, I'm wondering why my edits on Sikkim pika (Q28185220) were reverted? Just trying to learn what I did wrong so I can avoid making mistakes in the future when I add data. Thanks! Jeanjung212 (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The ids you added belong to Ochotona thibetana sikimaria (Q20905131) --Succu (talk) 18:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
After more research I see that the information I was looking at before was out-of-date and that Ochotona sikimaria is recognized as different species from Ochotona thibetana and subspecies sikimaria. My bad, I'll be more thorough in the future, thanks for taking the time to respond! Jeanjung212 (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Removal of valid label and statemens from Italian penal code (Q15849378)[edit]

Why are you removing valid statements from this element? They are referenced. Ogoorcs (talk) 21:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Referenced or not, I doubt the statements are correct. And your edits show you are not confident too. --Succu (talk) 14:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Duplicate IUCN IDs[edit]

Hi,

I am the operator of JoRobot (talkcontribslogs). First of all, sorry for the misunderstanding. It was a shared robot, the other owner is inactive, and I didn't redirect the talk page. I wasn't aware either of the procedures to set up a bot in Wikidata. When I got the credentials for the bot, I mentioned I planned to do stuff on Wikidata, and assumed that this was enough.

It seems one of my tasks has created some duplication problems, so let me tell you about it. I'm in a project to migrate the taxonomy templates in the Catalan wikipedia to a new one which makes heavy use of Wikidata. So the plan is to load images and audios into Wikidata, and then have the template grab it from there. In the meantime, we help the community by enriching Wikidata. As for the IUCN information, this is not automated. The bot reads the info in the template and Wikidata, deletes the info from the template, and flags a message if the info is in the template and not in Wikidata. In such a case, I search manually for the species in the Redlist website. If it's got status information, I update wikidata so our template can read it. If not, I leave it alone.

I did that manually for a while, and then I got tired, so I wrote a small script to do the updates for me. I give it the article name, the status according to the website, and the ID. The script then creates the IUCN conservation status (P141) and IUCN taxon ID (P627) properties. Because it's done on a per article basis, and I check them personally, the margin for error is small.

I have checked the duplicate IUCN IDs you flagged, and it seems to me that the problem existed previously. They are all duplicates, and the Q's should be merged. The conflicting Q's seem to come from a list of species and don't have a wikipedia article associated. Since many species have lots of synonyms, this is a normal problem. If anything, my bot-assisted edits (or the manual ones, since they are equivalent) are helping find an existing problem of Q duplication.

It's true that I didn't check that IUCN taxon ID (P627) existed before adding it again, I only checked IUCN conservation status (P141). I'm going to add code to do that. Apart from that, do you think there is something else that I could do to detect duplication? --Joutbis (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

They are all duplicates, and the Q's should be merged“ - No. For a start search my user talk for answers. --Succu (talk) 21:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC) PS: #Chřástal --Succu (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
That's interesting. Let me see if I get. Forgive my ignorance, I'm a computer scientist, and biology is not my thing at all. What you suggest (and has been shown to work in cs) is that if the UICN status is missing, the template should search for the Q in original combination (P1403), and if not, for taxon synonym (P1420)? From what I've seen, those cases are pretty complete, so we are likely to find the status eventually. If this is it, then I understand why my script is irrelevant.--Joutbis (talk) 22:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I see you already undid all the duplicates. Thank you, and sorry for the delay, the main template hasn't been fixed yet. But I have copied the list for testing purposes. --Joutbis (talk) 10:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Blocked[edit]

I have blocked you 31 hours for edit warring across several items: [1],[2],[3]. Please discuss in a collaborative and civil manner after your block, rather than endlessly reverting across the entire site. Of course, you are welcome to appeal using {{Unblock}}. --Rschen7754 17:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Approve icon.svg Unblock request granted

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, and one or more administrators has reviewed and granted this request.

Succu
block logipblocklistcrossblockluxo'sunblockremove gblock • contribs: +/-

Request reason:
(see below)
Unblock reason:
Subject to the discussion/conditions at [4] - while edit warring should not occur on Wikidata, it is a fair point that the last reverts were old and before a previous warning [5] for similar behavior. Rschen7754 18:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


This template should be archived normally.

Deutsch | English | español | français | Nederlands | português | +/−

Sorry but I don't see where I discussed not in a "collaborative and civil manner"--Succu (talk) 17:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

That's not what you were blocked for. --Rschen7754 17:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
The matter of date (Q1652093) was discussed at AN and I tried (again) to settle the matter and did not a single revert since your warning. So it feels to me as I was blocked for discussion the matter further. --Succu (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
The warning was for edit warring at WD:AN. --Rschen7754 17:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
My last revert in this matter was more than 24 hours ago. As far as I know at dewiki such belated blocks are not appied. --Succu (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I am willing to unblock you, however you must not continue the edit war or any edit war while the other two users are blocked. (Or even after that, but: any reverting related to the dispute while the other two users are blocked will result in this block being reinstated). Can you agree to this? --Rschen7754 18:09, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Sure. --Succu (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Thx. BTW: your block affected my current bot run as well, and I had to switch my IP address to continue the run. --Succu (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, if you are blocked again, you are not supposed to keep running your bot. This is by design. --Rschen7754 18:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
If FWIW means For whatever it’s worth I disagree. If my bot would operate via Tool Labs it wouldn't be affected. I doubt that in case of a short time block, I'm disallowed to end an earlier started job. Do you have a hint to such a policy? --Succu (talk) 22:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
See WD:SOCK. --Rschen7754 22:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Could you please cite the relevant part for me. Thank you. --Succu (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
"Alternate accounts, even legitimate alternate accounts, may not be used to circumvent a block or editing restriction. Unless otherwise stated by the admin placing the block or restriction, a block or editing restriction placed on the main account applies to the person behind the account, regardless of which account they use" --Rschen7754 23:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Was Wikidata:Alternate accounts ever formally accepted as an „official guideline”? I'm not aware of a community discussion about that. --Succu (talk) 20:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
PS: The page started with that exception: „Bots are excluded from this policy because they are used to mark automatically made edits.
PPS: The "rule" your are citing was introduced here by User:Jasper Deng. --Succu (talk) 21:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
PPPS: "Justified"? by Wikidata:Requests for comment/Sockpuppetry guidelines. --Succu (talk) 21:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Nothing was ever official about this version. The RFC you linked to clearly shows support for what I have stated as follows:

Under "Legitimate uses":

  • Bots: Users that operate bots, or automatic edit scripts, are required to run their bots off of alternate accounts.

Under "Illegitimate uses":

  • Circumventing sanctions or blocks: Alternate accounts, even legitimate alternate accounts, may not be used to circumvent a block or editing restriction.

Both sections passed at the RFC with nearly unanimous support. I do not see any ambiguity here. If you disagree, you are welcome to start your own community discussion about this. --Rschen7754 00:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

There is no link from Wikidata:Alternate accounts to Wikidata:Requests for comment/Sockpuppetry guidelines or vice versa. So I don't think the first is legit by the RfC. --Succu (talk) 20:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
You can think what you want, but administrators will enforce the policy as I have stated. This is my last response on this matter. --Rschen7754 21:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, some of them (2) will enforce this on weak grounds, User:Rschen7754. Wikidata:Bots declaires Bots as tools used to make edits without the necessity of human decision-making. There you find rules about damage caused by a bot, which are should be more enforced AFIK, but nothing else. -Succu (talk) 21:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Rasbora heteromorpha / Trigonostigma heteromorpha[edit]

So, I should rather move sitelinks, commonslink etc. to Q28599939, if this taxonomic name is clearly preferred (i. e. ITIS, GBIF etc.) ? --Vachovec1 (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Essentially the same goes for Q1333518 (→ Q28599938) and Q779365 (→ Q24796785). Vachovec1 (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
In this cases moving sitelinks is the best solution following the taxonomic opinion given by FishBase and Amphibian Species of the World. --Succu (talk) 17:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Some precarious taxonomy items again[edit]

Hey Succu, can you please have a look at these taxonomy-related items and help me to decide whether they are notable:

Thanks, MisterSynergy (talk) 07:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi! You can delete them all. Most of them had links to Wikispecies and are misspellings. --Succu (talk) 07:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Kumara plicatilis[edit]

Hi,

There are not 2 different plants, but 1 with two names. DenesFeri (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm aware of this fact. But the parent taxon of Aloe plicatilis is Aloe, not Kumara. Because of technical limitations we keep the sitelinks of homotypic synonyms tohgether. Most Wikipedias did not switched to Kumara plicatilis (Q39589434), so they are placed at Aloe plicatilis (Q145534). --Succu (talk) 08:52, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Common species names[edit]

Hey Succu. Check out this edit. The bot should've used two different statements instead of using "/". If you can fix cases like that, that'd be swell :) Thanks for your work! ~nmaia d 15:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for notifying me. I was not aware of such cases, but I can have a look. --Succu (talk) 15:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Looks like Portuguese has a lot of them. --Succu (talk) 16:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Query. Hope I can fix it this week, nmaia. --Succu (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Done, nmaia. This should reduce the number of problems at Wikidata:Database_reports/Constraint_violations/P1843#"Format"_violations. --Succu (talk) 15:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Duplicates to be merged?[edit]

Hey Succu, the following items:

Q2290503, Q2413258, Q2684377, Q2755648, Q2759678, Q2921074, Q4533385, Q13638326, Q14023954, Q14042354

are marked as duplicates of taxonomy items, but they don’t have sitelinks any longer. However, since they carry seemingly unique identifiers, I am not sure whether they can actually be merged into the main item.

There is another problem with no label (Q29344356). Can you please have a look whether it is a duplicate of Acidobacteriia (Q21441820) (as stated in the duplicate) or Acidobacteria (Q41579) and merge, if possible?

Thanks, MisterSynergy (talk) 08:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done. Ptychodactiidae (Q4533385) needs some more investigation ([6]). --Succu (talk) 10:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Rabies[edit]

Hi, may I ask for the reason of this edit: [7] ? Thanks. --Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 11:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The cat belongs to Rabies virus (Q698976). --Succu (talk) 11:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Anabaum[edit]

Hallo Succu, ich schreibe dir, weil nur du in einem (vielleicht) ähnlichen Fall wusstest, wie eine sinnvolle Verlinkung gestaltet werden sollte: Anabaum auf WP-de sollte verlinkt werden mit Faidherbia auf WP-en (sowie alle mitverlinkten Seiten). Das hatte ich bereits in die Diskussion unter "Link missing" geschrieben, aber offensichtlich weiß niemand, wie das geht. Vielleicht gelingt ja dir das Kunststück, wie damls, den rechten Griff zu tun. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, --Himbear (talk) 14:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hallo Himbear, das Problem liegt nicht so sehr bei Wikidata, sondern ist darin begründet, dass verschiedene Dinge vermengt werden. In der enWP werden monotypische Taxa in der Regel unter dem Lemma des Gattungsnamen angelegt. Der Artikel in der ptWP explizit über die Gattung Faidherbia (Q5429644). Wikispecies hat einen Artikel über die Gattung und einen über ihre (bisher) einzige Art Faidherbia albida (Q483240). Was passiert wenn eine zweite Art beschrieben wird? Ein prominentes aktuelles Beispiel wären die giraffe (Q862089), die bis 2016 als monotypisch angesehen wurde. Gruß--Succu (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Journal into list[edit]

Hello, I randomly arrived at ISSN 1175-5326/2001 (Q21385948) and it seems you turned it from an item on a journal to a list item by mistake. Please fix the mistake. DGtal (talk) 06:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

It a list of some articles published in Zootaxa (Q220370) in 2001. --Succu (talk) 07:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, my mistake. DGtal (talk) 08:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Anser fabalis sensu lato and Anser fabalis sensu stricto[edit]

Succu, I guess you're well acquainted with taxonomy and nomenclature, hence I'm puzzled by your edits regarding item Q14445301 and item Q26452. By some authors, the bean goose is considered one species, Anser fabalis, with two subspecies, A. f. fabalis, and A. f. serrirostris. This is the classic view, still held by some major organisations today, like IUCN and BOU. Recent research showed some evidence based upon which one might choose to treat these subspecies as separate species, hence Anser fabalis and Anser serrirostris. So we now have two opinions on Anser fabalis: A "large" species, Anser fabalis sensu lato, and a "small" species, Anser fabalis sensu stricto. Both opinions are equally valid. In English and Dutch there are even separate names: bean goose and rietgans for Anser fabalis sensu lato, taiga bean goose and taigarietgans for Anser fabalis sensu stricto. No one can forbid the encyclopedia to have articles on both the taiga bean goose and the tundra bean goose as well as on the bean goose. That's what has been done in the Dutch Wikipedia.

Anser fabalis sensu lato and Anser fabalis sensu stricto ARE NOT the same taxon. There is some overlap, but in one of them the tundra bean goose is included, in the other one it is not. Hence item Q14445301 IS NOT a duplicate of item Q26452, and it is a mistake to make a statement saying otherwise. Wikiklaas (talk) 12:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there are different taxonomic opinions about the circumscription of Anser fabalis. In my opinion there is no need to have two or more articles in a special Wikipedia. But of course this is not my decision. --Succu (talk) 13:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
That exactly is my point. It is not up to us to decide what opinion is "correct", or to prescribe how Wikipedia's should deal with ambiguity like this. Thanks for understanding. Wikiklaas (talk) 14:18, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

GRIN formatter URL[edit]

Hi Succu. Can you explain why GRIN URL shouldn't contain the formatter URL? --Ahecht (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The datatype of GRIN URL (P1421) is URL and not External ID. --Succu (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I missed that. --Ahecht (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Mammals of China[edit]

Moin Succu,
zugegeben, hat ein wenig gedauert - aber ich habe mal die freien Tage genutzt für die Artenliste von A Guide to the Mammals of China (Q19604469), siehe User:Achim Raschka/Smith & Yan Xie 2008. Was mit einigem Aufwand noch machbar ist, ist die Extrahierung der benannten Unterarten aus dem Fließtext sowie die Abstimmung der Autoren - wenn ich das jetzt noch machen würde, würde ich mich wahrscheinlich 2022 wieder melden. Also: wenn du Zeit und Lust hast kannst du diese Liste gern für einen Botlauf übernehmen, ich brauche sie primär in der Wikipedia. Gruß -- Achim Raschka (talk) 03:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Achim! Ich hatte schon bemerkt, dass du in den letzten Tagen daran gearbeitet hast. Erweiterungen kannst du vornehmen wann immer du Zeit und Lust dazu hast. Kein Problem. Ich schau es mir in den nächsten Tagen genauer an. Gruß --Succu (talk) 10:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Klingt gut - eine Rückfrage: könnte man mit den Angaben in diesen Listen (auch bsp. Thotington oder HMW) evtl. auch die Bibliographien in described by source (P1343) für die Arten füllen. Darauf aufbauend: Ich habe mir heute auch mal die von dir in der Bio-Redaktion verlinkte Liste der Mammalian Species angesehen und bei der Publikation Macrotus waterhousii (Q44816894) die main subject (P921) und bei der Art Waterhouse's Leaf-nosed Bat (Q1831620) die described by source (P1343) ergänzt - könnte man das evtl. automatisieren? Gruß -- Achim Raschka (talk) 11:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Der Sinn der Eigenschaft described by source (P1343) ist für mich ein wenig undurchschaubar. Falls ich das richtig in meinem Hinterkopf gespeichert habe, war sie wohl eher dazu gedacht Wikisource-Artikel einzubinden. Benötigt man bei den Art-Artikeln in Mammalian Species (Q1637051) nochmals die Art als main subject (P921)? Machbar ist Vieles... Gruß --Succu (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, was man braucht, weiß ich nicht. Ich sehe described by source (P1343) vor allem als Option, eine Basisbiobliografie aufzubauen (Monografien, species accounts) - und main subject (P921) als Gegenpol bei der jeweililgen Literatur. Ob das so gedacht oder sinnvoll ist, kann ich nicht sagen - nach meinem Verständnis wäre allerdings der Aufwand aufgrund der bestehenden Listen gering (worin ich mich täuschen könnte, da ich keine Boterfahrung habe). Gruß -- Achim Raschka (talk) 06:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

really sorry...[edit]

Sorry for https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q2535664&diff=597417513&oldid=550692658

It was imported with Harvest template from {{birth year and age|1900}} that is in the text... :( - the use of this template is sometimes quite problematic... and the "taxon" P31 should have prevented the import. I will check with Pasleim for P31 incompatibility.

Thanks for catching it. --Hsarrazin (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

No problem at all. From time to time I'm working on unusual properties used for taxa. ;) --Succu (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Edition of Carpomys in wikidata[edit]

Hello Succu,

I've seen you have edited the former last edition of Carpomys in wikidata to restore some references of the parent taxon property. I changed the parent taxon of this genus because, as a recent study say, the parent taxon of this genere is no longer murinae. So the references that I deleted were references of the former parent taxon Murinae. With this new classification, that references are no longer valid. Please, undo your edition because it's not correct.

If you want, you can see that study here (see 2nd table).

Thank you  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sng (talk • contribs).

You removed sourced data. That's not the way we work here. We accept different taxonomic opinions side by side. I readded the tribe with your reference. --Succu (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I did it because it's incorrect. The reference I added is correct because show the more recent classification. As I told you, murine are no longer the parent taxon of this genus. The same happens to most of the rest of murinae genus. Now the parent taxon of most part of them is a tribe. I have moved the former references of murine to the parent taxon of the tribe. In this case, Fleomini. Thank you and sorry for the inconvenience. Sng (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Skorpione[edit]

Hi Succu,
ich hätte da noch zwei Listen, die durchgebottet werden können, diesmal zur Höheren Taxonomie der Skorpione: User:Achim Raschka/Fet & Soleglad 2005 und User:Achim Raschka/Prendini & Wheeler 2005. Es handelt sich um zwei konkurrierende Taxonomien (in den Papern sparen die Autoren nicht mit Angriffen gegen die jeweils andere Partei), die erstbeschreibenenden Personen der Taxa sind jedoch identisch - daher nur einmal den Datensätzen zugeordnet. Wenn du also Zeit und Lust hast ... Gruß -- Achim Raschka (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi! Mal schaun, wie sich das mit User:Succu/Scorpiones (bis Familie) verträgt. #Mammals of China habe ich heute laufen lassen, dabei aber erstmal das Erstellen neuer Werte für parent taxon (P171) ausgelassen. Das möchte ich mir noch mal genauer anschauen, da es über 150 Ergänzungen geben würde. Gruß --Succu (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Hier gibt es noch einen kleinen Nachschlag zu den Sorpionen: User:Achim_Raschka/Sousa_et_al._2017
Zu #Mammals of China: 150 neue Einträge für parent taxon (P171) klingt auch für mich irgendwie falsch, zumal die Säugerstruktur ja steht. Danke, -- Achim Raschka (talk) 08:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, siehst du eigentlich irgendeine Chance, die Artenlisten aus The Scorpion Files automagisch oder halbautomagisch zu extrahieren? Zu finden hier: [8]. Ich könnte mir vorstellen, dass eine Extraktion aus dem Quelltext pro Familienseite technisch möglich wäre - alternativ könnte ich mich mal dransetzen, halbautomatisch zu basteln - was meinst du? -- Achim Raschka (talk) 11:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Ich hab mal kurz auf den HTML-Code geschaut. Der ist nicht besonders strukturiert. Es ist vmtl. einfacher die Einträge per C&P zu kopieren und die Gattungsnamen per Suchen und Ersetzten zu erweitern. Sollte nicht mehr als eine Stunde dauern - schätze ich. Gruß --Succu (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
O.k., bastle ich dir gern zusammen am WE, wenn es für dich passt. Gruß -- Achim Raschka (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Wäre natürlich schön alles bis zumindest bis auf Artebene "herunterzubrechen", aber ist diese Website tatsächlich dazu geeignet? Ich bin mir nicht wirklich sicher. Gruß --Succu (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Ich denke schon, dass man sie als Referenz für die Arten nutzen kann - sie ist nicht die taxonomische Instanz, den Anspruch hat sie nach eigener Darstellung auch nicht und den kann sie und auch kein anderer bei den aktuellen zerstrittenen Lagern (s.o.) leisten. Sie stellt jedoch eine Quelle für alle als valide betrachteten bekannten / beschriebenen Artnamen der rezenten Skorpione mit Erstbeschreiber und Jahr auf der Basis wissenschaftlicher Literatur (Reviews, Erstbeschreibungen) dar, und darin ist sie nach meinem Dafürhalten nicht schlechter als fishbase, Amphibia Web oder andere Datenbanken. Mir zumindest ist für sie Skorpione keine bessere Quelle bekannt, die dies nachvollziehbar aufbereitet. Der verantwortliche Wissenschaftler Jan Ove Rein an der NTNU arbeitet und forscht selbst im Bereich der Skorpione, ist Erstbeschreiber und es gibt sogar einen Skorpion, der nach ihm benannt ist. All in all denke ich schon, dass man die Seite als Rewferenz für die Artnamen und damit die taxonomische Grundlage nehmen kann. Schwieriger stelle ich mir die Aktualisierungen vor, da neu beschriebene Arten immer direkt eingepflegt werden. Gruß -- Achim Raschka (talk) 05:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Für Aktualisierungen könnte man sich am Blog oder den Tweeds orientieren. Das ist allerdings nicht sonderlich komfortabel.
BTW: Mit den drei Listen ist der Bot durch. Gruß --Succu (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Cervus canadensis hanglu[edit]

Hi,

Cervus canadensis hanglu is a subspecies of Cervus canadensis, not of Cervus elaphus. DenesFeri (talk) 08:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, of course. But you changed twice the parent taxon of Cervus elaphus hanglu. --Succu (talk) 09:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

This is the real thing; [9]. Cervus elaphus hanglu is a synonym; the real scientific name of this deer is Cervus canadensis hanglu. It's not my problem if someone made this wikidatarticle twice. DenesFeri (talk) 09:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Don't confuse opinions and facts. "Cervus elaphus hanglu is a synonym" is an opinion (held by some taxonomists; other taxonomists may have other opinions). "Prof. Przwofsky has stated in his magnum opus that he judges Cervus elaphus hanglu to be a synonym" is a fact. - Brya (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Sudamericano[edit]

Excuse me? I do not understand. -- Blackcat (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

You are using a wrong property. See Wikidata:Database_reports/Constraint_violations/P523#Value_type_Q6156156. --Succu (talk) 06:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Taxon on handball[edit]

I saw your question mark on the handball-stadium. I checked how this happened, on nl-wiki the category hand was the mother-cat of sport handball. And hand ends up in the taxonomy-category that I use to create new items with the property P31=taxon. Sometimes I see these and keep them out of PetScan, but this one I definitely missed. Edoderoo (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

No problem at all. The question mark fulfilled it's goal. Thx. ;) --Succu (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Carnivora - Autorenzuordnung[edit]

Hi Succu,
auf User:Achim_Raschka/MSW-Carnivora findest du die Autorenzuordnung (Erstbeschreibe, Jahr) für alle Carnivora - es gibt ein paar kleine Lücken, die ich noch nicht auflösen konnte (v.a. Chinesen und Russen)und evtl. gibt es auch kleinere Fehler - aber alles in allem sollte es so passen. Falls dein Bot also mal Lageweile hat und Qualifikatoren botten möchte ... Gruß -- Achim Raschka (talk) 12:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi again, ich hänge mit den Unpaarhufern noch eine kurze Liste mit Erstbeschreibern an, die ebenfalls gebottet werden kann: User:Achim Raschka/MSW-Perissodactyla - sobald ich nerve, gib Bescheid ;) Gruß -- Achim Raschka (talk) 13:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Keine Problem. MSW-Perissodactyla habe ich gerade erledigt. Auffällig ist, dass unser deWP-Artikel zu Rhinocerotidae eine andere Autorenangabe hat. Gruß --Succu (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Danke - die Unklarheiten bei den Rhinocerotidae habe ich hier zur Diskussion gestellt und Antwort von DagdaMor erhalten: "Gray nutzte 1821 die Bezeichnung Rhynocerotidae ([1]), S. 306. Owen 1845 verwendete erstmals die heute korrekte Schreibweise Rhinocerotidae ([2]), S. 587, den Unterschied macht also ein "y" aus. Die Verwendung ist daher sehr uneinheitlich und eine Tendenz bei den Wissenschaftlern nicht erkennbar. Ich persönlich würde zur heute richtigen Schreibweise tendieren, also Rhinocerotidae Owen, 1845." Das Ganze ist im WP-Artikel auch erklärt. Können wir das in WD irgendwie abbilden? Gruß -- Achim Raschka (talk) 07:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Hab mal was versucht. So richtig befriedigend finde ich es noch nicht. --Succu (talk) 10:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Wenn du Lust hast, kannst du mit den User:Achim Raschka/MSW-Lagomorpha weitermachen - die wenigen Lücken kann ich aktuell noch nciht füllen. Gruß -- Achim Raschka (talk) 10:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Mammal Diversity Database (MDD)[edit]

Hi Succu,
in [10] stellen Burgin et al. am 1. Februar eine neue Datenbank für Mammal Species vor, die von der ASM zusammengestellt wurde und MSW 3 als online-Referenz aktualisieren, erweitern und kontinuierlich weiter pflegen soll. Laut https://mammaldiversity.org/ sind in der Datenbank aktuell fast 6.500 Arten gelistet, also fast 1000 mehr als in MSW 3. Auf der Seite kann man die vollständige Taxonomie in verschiedenen Formaten downloaden, damit sollte sie auch für deinen Bot grefbar sein. Vielleicht magst du dir das mal anschauen und dann evtl. importieren? Gruß, -- Achim Raschka (talk) 07:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Nachtrag: Wenn du die Datenbank für WikiData tatsächlich aufbereiten kannst, fände ich es prima, wenn du mir hiervon ebenlass eine Liste wie bei MSW bereit stellen kannst. Darünber hinaus fände ich es klasse, eine Liste der konkreten Änderungen zu haben (bzw. aller Taxa, die in MSW 3 nicht vorhanden waren) - das ist aber wahrscheinlich technisch nicht umsetzbar, right? Gruß -- Achim Raschka (talk) 08:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Achim. Sieht sehr interessant aus. Leider ist es mir bisher nicht gelungen die Daten herunterzuladen. Ich bekomme immer nur ein paar Datensätze. Die Liste der Änderung seit MSW3 findest du unter https://mammaldiversity.org/taxonomy Gruß --Succu (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC) PS: Ich hab gerade entdeckt, dass zu dem von dir verlinkten Artikel auch eine Excel-Datei gehört. Damit lässt sich sicher was anfangen. --Succu (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Die Excel-Datei hab ich mittlerweile ausgewertet. Ich werde als nächstes mal schaun für welche Taxa wir noch kein Datenobjekt haben. Gruß --Succu (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry für die Nichtreaktion - kann man die Auswertung irgendwo sehen? -- Achim Raschka (talk) 10:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Kein Problem, gibt ja genug zu tun. Die Ergebnisse sind nur lokal bei mir auf dem Rechner. Uns fehlen (theoretisch) fast 700 Namen. Gleich der erste Name für die wiederanerkannte Art Marmosa waterhousii ist eine Falschschreibung von Marmosa waterhousei (Q26265410), obwohl's in in der entsprechenden Publikation richtig angegeben ist. Es gibt noch andere Ungereimtheiten. MDD kennt übrigens weder Unterarten noch Untergattungen. Ich hab das Thema daher erstmal auf Eis gelegt und mich der Vervollständigung der Fauna Europaea (Q2745977) gewidmet. Gruß --Succu (talk) 15:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Caspiomyzon graecus (Q5025659) and Caspiomyzon graecus (Q46388952)[edit]

They are the same taxon. I think they should be merged. Gdarin (talk) 10:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

No they shouldn't. I moved the sitelinks to Caspiomyzon graecus (Q46388952). --Succu (talk) 11:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Can you explain me why? Gdarin (talk) 11:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
We need both items, because we have to express that the name Caspiomyzon graecus (Q46388952) is based on (=original combination (P1403)) Eudontomyzon graecus (Q5025659), and we keep the sitelinks of objective synonyms together. Here I followed the taxonomic opinon given in FishBase and CoF. --Succu (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Incomplete mergers[edit]

Hello Succu. I have noticed that your bot has recently carried out a number of mergers (which is actually really high). The thing is that while moving data from the one item to the other, it neither clears the item nor redirects it to the destination of the merger. As a result, somewhere around 400 items (if counted correctly) need to be redirected. Do you have any ideas why this happened or how can it be fixed, for future mergers at least? --Kostas20142 (talk) 18:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kostas20142! Maybe an API bug? In this cases my bot was merging from a lower to a higher QID. --Succu (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it might be. So I suppose not much to be done in order to avoid it in the future. Do you have any ideas on how to fix this? Of course doing it manually is always an option (not the most pleasant though :( ) but I wondered whether a bot could fix it somehow. --Kostas20142 (talk) 18:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Reporting the problem at Wikidata:Contact the development team might help. --Succu (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Wartungslistenwunsch[edit]

Hi Succu,
da ich ja kontinuierlich bei Taxa taxon name (P225) die Qualifikatoren taxon author (P405), date of taxon name publication (P574) und instance of (P31) (Umkombination) eintrage: Gibt es die Möglichkeit, via SPARQL eine Wartungliste zu erstellen, die alle taxon rank (P105) = species (Q7432) listet, bei denen das parent taxon (P171) (Gattung) einen Qualifikator date of taxon name publication (P574) hat, dessen Jahresbezeichnung jünger als die bei der Art ist? Diese Arten müssten zumindest meiner Logik folgend ja grundsätzlich instance of (P31) = recombination (Q14594740) als Qualifikator zum taxon name (P225) bekommen, oder? Gruß -- Achim Raschka (talk) 11:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, dies darfst du erstmal ignorieren - ich habe hier von Lydia/Lucas etwas gebastelt bekommen: [11] und [12]. Muss jetzt nur noch die Syntax und die Unterschiede verstehen. Gruß -- Achim Raschka (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Saffron[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your intervention. I followed Q42562 while adding those properties to Q25434 but obviously there was a problem; I will move them to Q15041677 i.e. Q165077 (some time later). --Obsuser (talk) 10:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Q15499449 and Q11036944[edit]

no label (Q15499449) is a misspelling of Amitostigma parceflorum (Q11036944), found in only a few sources now, as it has been corrected in IPNI. I have moved many entries from Q15499449 to Q11036944. Should Q15499449 be made into a redirect? I don't know how to do this. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

There is a gadget you can activate to merge both items. I did the merge for you. --Succu (talk) 14:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. I was not sure if the two items should be merged. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Query for plant species[edit]

Any idea how I would construct a query to retrieve all plant species in Wikidata (but not things like basionyms, etc.)? I don't need the exact query syntax, just a description of what the query would include. Any help would be appreciated. Kaldari (talk) 06:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

This query to retrieve all plant species unfortunately times out. There is a workaround which works sometimes. A basionym related query you find in Taxa described first time in year.... Maybe you want to have a look at User:Succu/SPARQL. Hope that helps. --Succu (talk) 14:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Those are useful to start from. Kaldari (talk) 04:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
This query, which works its way down from plant, works without timing out. The next step is that I need to filter out all the synonyms. Unfortunately, the way that taxonomic synonyms are indicated in Wikidata seems to be all over the map. I wish we had used Wikidata's aliasing system (even with its limitations) instead of creating separate items for all the synonyms, but I suppose that ship has sailed. Here are all the structures that I'm currently planning to filter out as synonyms. Do you know of any others I should look for?
Kaldari (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
The list looks complete to me as far as I can tell in the morning. ;) --Succu (talk) 05:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Your query works for animal (Q729) as well. Thats good. Thx. --Succu (talk) 05:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
It looks like in some cases, all the name-items of a species are listed as instance of (P31): synonym (Q1040689) and there's no way to identify which name is accepted. For example Rocio octofasciata (Q3737), Cichlasoma octofasciata (Q10904620), and Heros octofasciatus (Q20873580). Any idea what I should do in those cases? Just pick whichever one has more identifiers? Pinging Brya as well. Kaldari (talk) 08:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
This is by design. WD is not a taxon authority. WS claims it is. We reflect taxonomic opinions via references, but they are rare. The linkage of a scientific name to it's basionym (Q810198) is highly incomplete. Essentially not existing for fungi and algae. Using external ids will not help, because different models are used by external databases: 1) having an id for every name, 2) redirect the id to the accepted/valid name and 3) reuse the id for the accepted/valid name. --Succu (talk) 20:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
There is no reason why a name that serves as basionym of another name should not be an accepted name. Lots of the best-accepted names of species are basionyms of disused names. - Brya (talk) 04:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Succu: If Wikidata doesn't make any decision about the acceptance of a name, how do we decide which name gets the sitelinks (if Wikipedia uses a common name)? And how do we decide which name gets all the other claims (like endemic to, conservation status, taxon range map image, etc.)? And how do we deal with items whose labels are common names (like Red-tailed Hawk (Q457471))? Do we then list all the scientific names under a single item? Kaldari (talk) 05:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Generally the information should be put to the name the reference supports. A taxon range map should provide this (I never encounterd a reference here). Cswiki has a LUA solution that handles synonoms for conservation status (actually IUCN ids refer to a taxonomic opinion). Probably this solution could be adapted for other cases too. On „which name gets the sitelinks” I favour a pragmatic solution: I move them to best fit (e.g. if conservation status is involved). I doubt WD can answer a call like "Hey Wikidata, how many plant species exists?" in a foreseeable future. --Succu (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not interested in how many species exist. I'm actually trying to help someone with a project where they need to import all the plant species from Wikidata. Unfortunately, it seems that this isn't actually possible since Wikidata organizes information by name rather than by species (or at least that's the impression I'm getting from this conversation). Personally, I don't see how it's helpful for us to have separate items for each name. Most people (and all of the other WMF projects) want information per species and expect all of that information to be consolidated under one item, not randomly spread between different items depending on when the information was published (and thus which name it was associated with). For all other areas of knowledge on Wikidata, we create 1 item per entity or concept, not 1 item per name. Wouldn't it be a lot cleaner if we just listed all the synonyms as string value claims under one item for the species (as Brya originally proposed)? I realize that in some very rare cases this might force us to make a taxonomic decision where the sources conflict, but all the other projects (Wikipedia, Wikispecies, and Commons) manage to deal with this just fine. The way we currently have the data arranged doesn't seem to facilitate any use cases besides compiling a taxonomic catalog. It definitely doesn't help us integrate with Wikipedia or 3rd party sites like iNaturalist (or the project I'm trying to help with). What are your thoughts on this? Kaldari (talk) 04:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
WD is about structured data. SPARQL makes it queryable. You need an item for a basionym and later names based on it. Otherwise you would create a not very usful selflink. We need separate items for authors and the reference a nomenclatural act was published. Putting all the names into P225 will not work. We tried this at the very begining. In fact placing a taxon into another genus or another rank represents a different concept. If I remember right iNaturalist has something like "inactive taxon" (e.g. [13]) were the id belonging to a name is retained (case 1 frome above). Would be interesting to know why the project you are trying to help with selected WD as a base. --Succu (talk) 18:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that we list synonyms under taxon name (P225), I'm suggesting that we list them as strings under taxon synonym (P1420). You would still be able to have authors, dates, and references for them (just like we do for taxon name (P225)). And since they would just be strings (albeit with qualifiers and references), you wouldn't have any self-links. The only change this would require would be allowing string values within taxon synonym (P1420). I think that this would allow us to set up a much cleaner organization of our data (where all the statements and sitelinks related to a single species were listed under a single item). Regarding iNaturalist, I'm pretty sure they don't have separate ids for each name. I believe the situation you describe only occurs when an existing taxon on iNaturalist is replaced or merged with another taxon by one of the curators, in which case the old record is declared inactive. iNaturalist allows adding multiple scientific names under one taxon and designating them as either accepted or not.[14][15] So I think it's closer to scheme 3 in practice (and closer to what I would like to see us doing here). Regarding the project I'm working on, their back-end is a Wikibase installation, so importing from Wikidata seemed like a natural fit, although they're only interested in plant species, subspecies, and varieties (not higher taxons) and won't be importing most of our claims (probably just image, taxon name, taxon common name, and some of the identifiers). Kaldari (talk) 07:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 18:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Use of nomen dubium (Q922448)[edit]

I re-added nomen dubium (Q922448) at Zygoballus quaternus (Q5345159). Is there some reason that it isn't appropriate there? Kaldari (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Why should this be modeled as an instance of (P31)? --Succu (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
I would have used nomenclatural status (P1135), but it's not allowed by the constraints (same for nomen nudum (Q844326) which I requested to be added a year ago). I'm not going to bother trying to add those myself, since I know I'll just be reverted. Please let me know how you would actually like me to record this information. Kaldari (talk) 01:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
19 items use instance of (P31), but only one has taxon name (P225). 25 items use nomenclatural status (P1135) as a qualifier to taxon name (P225). I would prefer this solution too. --Succu (talk) 15:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


April 2018[edit]

You have been blocked temporarily for abuse of editing privileges. Once this block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest it by editing this page and adding the following template with a suitable reason: {{unblock|1=<the reason for your unblock request>}}. If you are logged in, and the option has not been disabled, you may also email the blocking administrator (or any administrator from this list) by using this form.

English | বাংলা | Deutsch | español | français | galego | 日本語 | македонски | Nederlands | português | русский | Scots | 中文 | +/−

Rschen7754 00:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

You were blocked for edit warring at [16], after a warning about edit warring here. --Rschen7754 00:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
X mark.svg Unblock request declined

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason.

Succu
block logipblocklistcrossblockluxo'sunblockremove gblock • contribs: +/-

Request reason:
I asked for your advice how to handle situations lik this. The was no response from you
Decline reason:
Not an unblock request.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


'

Deutsch | English | español | français | Nederlands | português | +/−

--Succu (talk) 05:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

So the fact that you edit warred is somehow my responsibility? --Rschen7754 17:19, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
What do you think why I did this edit, User:Rschen7754?
A cool reason, Jasper Deng!
See you both at WD:AN. --Succu (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Mind to revert this change, Jasper Deng or User:Rschen7754? Thx. --Succu (talk) 22:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

That's been reverted. However, given your comments before this one, your block has been reset to 3 days starting now and your talk page access has been disabled. Basically, it seems (from your comments) you are not interested in getting unblocked.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

ARKive[edit]

Hello Succu, I've seen that you reverted the ARKive property I added a few days ago and I would like to understand if I made a mistake while adding this property. If so, would you mind explaining me how to correctly add this property? Danke schöneLupin~frwiki (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Your addition was wrong. This property is for taxa only. --Succu (talk) 13:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry but what do you mean by "taxa"? Lupin~frwiki (talk) 08:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Please see taxon (Q16521). --Succu (talk) 15:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanation, I understand better. :)Lupin~frwiki (talk) 07:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

POWO[edit]

Hi Succu, why have you changed the formatter url of this property? Is the prefix "Urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:" not always the same? Micru (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Micru, nobody knows this for sure. See the heated debate at the property proposal. We should use the id that is been used by the database (=LSID). Regards --Succu (talk) 15:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
What about IPNI? Does not follow the same format? Btw, it would be nice if you could activate structured discussions, otherwise I have to watchlist your talk page to know when you reply. Micru (talk) 15:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
The domain of POWO is much broader than that of IPNI (fungi and algae are not the subject of IPNI). It's likely they will use LSIDs like urn:lsid:algaebase.org:taxname:5130 and urn:lsid:indexfungorum.org:names:154022. --Succu (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC) PS: Structured discussion is not an option for me.
Ok. "Structured discussion is not an option for me", just curious, why? Micru (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
That was so long ago, forgot about that... Using http://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org/taxon/$1 works for both property examples, and Acanthaceae (Q53475) too. — Tom.Reding (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Please slow down[edit]

Hi, can you please slow down editing with SuccuBot? You are causing noticeable dispatch lag. Your bot should stay well under 30 edits per minute. Cheers, Hoo man (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Done, but is „under 30 edits per minute“ a new guideline? I'll have an eye at dispatch lag for the rest of this evening. If necessary I'll stop my bot. --Succu (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
User:Renamerrs job(s) resumed after your block... --Succu (talk) 22:07, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
It is not a new guideline, but has always been like that. The sole difference is that, due to the frequent problems with change handling/ dispatching recently, this is being brought up way more often. Cheers, Hoo man (talk) 10:04, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
I just had to block the bot again, sorry… but it was the user editing the fastest and definitely over 30 edits per minute. Cheers, Hoo man (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Hoo man, I'm watching the lag for 24 hours now, stopping my bot from time to time, but the lag seldom dropped below 5 minutes. The latest recommendation I remember were much higher. Sorry for the inconvenience my bot may have caused. So the current job (around 400,000 remaining) will take a long time. Sigh.--Succu (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
I started a throttled version of this job, probably slightly over 30 edits per minute. Another batch of more than 200,000 edits is waiting. Jobs we should be able to do just in time. --Succu (talk) 21:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Your bot is editing at way over 30 edits per minute again, while we have 30m dispatch lag. Please slow down significantly. Cheers, Hoo man (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 01:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

WD:AN[edit]

I have started a discussion about your recent behavior on that page. --Rschen7754 20:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked for a period of 1 month for persistently taunting, pinging, and otherwise berating Rschen7754 far beyond what is reasonable. Once this block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest it by editing this page and adding the following template with a suitable reason: {{unblock|1=<the reason for your unblock request>}}. If you are logged in, and the option has not been disabled, you may also email the blocking administrator (or any administrator from this list) by using this form.

English | বাংলা | Deutsch | español | français | galego | 日本語 | македонски | Nederlands | português | русский | Scots | 中文 | +/−

Succu, in general, you seem to like to make comments that have the effect of provoking others; Wikipedia:Don't poke the bear (Q15868164) is highly relevant here. This is not limited to just this incident and has been going on for as long as I’ve known you on Wikidata. It’s gotten beyond the point where I think such a way of commenting is poisonous to the collegial atmosphere necessary for a collaborative project like this one, so you are blocked for much longer than before.—Jasper Deng (talk) 21:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC) Jasper Deng (talk) 21:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)


Ambox blue question.svg This blocked user has asked to be unblocked.
Succu
block logipblocklistcrossblockluxo'sunblockremove gblock • contribs: +/-

Request reason:

See discussion below (in German)
Blocked editor
Please paste the contents of the block infobox below to help administrators locate your block in the logs. Please note that trolling or otherwise abusing your ability to edit your talk page will result in that ability being revoked.
Administrators
  • If this request is declined, it should be replaced with: {{unblock declined|1=reason for request|2=decline reason ~~~~}}
  • If this request is granted, it should be replaced with: {{unblock granted|1=reason for request|2=grant reason ~~~~}}
  • Do not unblock users without consulting with the administrator who placed the block, except in obvious, uncontroversial cases. Blocks marked as {{checkuserblock}} require the approval of a CheckUser to unblock.

English | español | français | македонски | português | português do Brasil | 中文 |

Und du wirst einen Grund erfinden damit ich hier nicht editieren darf. --Succu (talk) 21:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Succu, sehr ernstgemeinter Ratschlag: zieh das hier zurück und schlaf erstmal ne Nacht darüber. Morgen ist auch noch ein Tag, oder übermorgen. (Das hier ist keine administrative Entscheidung.) Viele Grüße, —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2018 (UTC) Du darfst meinen Beitrag natürlich mit entfernen.
@MisterSynergy du meinst eher einen Monat. Nein, so kann das nicht weitergehen. --Succu (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Ich hatte schon einen Kommentar für das aktuelle Thema auf WD:AN geschrieben, aber die Dinge haben mich durch Deine Sperre überholt. Der Konflikt zwischen Andy und Dir ist zuletzt leider ziemlich heiß geworden, und die Zahl und der Umfang der Editwars in jüngerer Zeit in keiner Weise tolerabel (Beispiele: [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27]; ich habe keine echte Übersicht – würde mich nicht wundern, wenn es noch mehr davon gibt). Das betrifft aber euch beide gleichermaßen.
Schwierig ist hier die Frage, wie das zu lösen ist. Es geht augenscheinlich nicht mehr um fachliches (was an sich schon hoch-komplex ist), sondern das ist wohl vor allem ein rein persönliches Ding zwischen Euch beiden. Als Admins haben wir Schutz- und Sperrknöpfe; erstere bringen wohl wenig, und letztere waren bei temporärer Anwendung auch nicht effektiv. Ich bin ehrlich gesagt ratlos, was man da machen könnte; mit konventionellen Mitteln kommen wir jedoch nicht weiter. Moderation, Kontaktmoratorium, etc. wären Versuche, die man individuell vereinbaren müsste – wenn Ihr beide das wollt. Es wäre jedenfalls höchst hilfreich, wenn Du die wenigen involvierten Admins da raus lässt, auch wenn Du mit den Entscheidungen nicht immer einverstanden bist.
Zum unblock-request: Du kannst den auch morgen oder übermorgen noch stellen, mit ein bisschen mehr Abstand zur Sache und klarer argumentiert. Ich fürchte, Du wirst die Sperre nicht loswerden, aber möglicherweise bekommst Du sie verkürzt. Deine Position ist leider nicht besonders gut, durch diesen request mit der Begründung wird sie eher noch schlechter. Es würde mich echt ärgern, wenn es Dich hier so lange aus der Kurve trägt. Viele Grüße, —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Einfache Frage: Unterstützt du die Länge der Sperrdauer, falls ja Warum? Im Fall von Meinungsverschiedenheiten bevorzuge ich es den "Opponent" in die "Pflicht" zu nehmen. User:Jasper Deng kannte wohl meine letzte Antwort nicht. --Succu (talk) 22:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Guten Morgen. Ich sags mal so: ich würde mich hier nicht einmischen, wenn ich glücklich mit der Sperre wäre. Detaillierter möchte ich die Adminaktion nicht bewerten.
Praktisch immer hat man als etablierter Benutzer einen Verhandlungsspielraum, wenn es zu einer Sperre gekommen ist. Dazu ist es aber wichtig, irgendwie auch das eigene Verhalten zu reflektieren und das in der Entsperranfrage auch zu signalisieren. Möglicherweise sind auch Entschuldigungen hilfreich, und Strategien mit denen man ähnliche Situationen in Zukunft vermeiden möchte. Unter dem Aspekt darfst Du meinen Ratschlag einordnen, hier ein bisschen zeitlichen Abstand zu gewinnen und es dann mit einer besseren Begründung erneut zu versuchen.
Die Motivation für diese Sperre kann ich nämlich – leider – ziemlich gut nachvollziehen. Das eigentliche Problem ist der persönliche Konflikt mit Andy, aber der ist mittlerweile soweit eskaliert, dass Administratoren wegen der zahlreichen Editwars eingreifen müssen. Nur sehr wenige machen das, denn letztlich gefährdet man damit immer auch das möglicherweise gut funktionierende Verhältnis zu Euch beiden. Das neue Thema von Rschen7754 auf den Adminnotizen kann ich deshalb nachvollziehen, und ich empfinde es als wenig hilfreich, wenn Du von den eingreifenden Administratoren wie in diesem Fall eine Lösung einforderst. Mit Knöpfen ist das hier nicht zu lösen, da kann bestenfalls das Problem verlagert werden (mit Seitenschutz) oder pausiert werden (mit Benutzersperren).
Trotzdem können Admins und andere Benutzer Dir und Andy in dem Konflikt helfen, da hast Du völlig Recht. Dabei sind mangels verfügbarer Richtlinien für solche Fälle wahrscheinlich unkonventionelle Ansätze notwendig, die Akzeptanz finden müssen. Die Frage ist, wie Ihr das anfordern könnt: WD:AN wäre wohl eine geeignete Stelle zum diskutieren; man bräuchte eine Analyse was schiefgelaufen ist, und dann muss man halt überlegen, wie Ihr da raus kommt und was Ihr selbst für die Lösung anzubieten habt. Zurzeit ist der Konflikt zerfasert mit immer neuen Diskussionen an verschiedenen Stellen, die meist nicht zielführend geführt (und gelenkt) werden. Zuletzt noch dies: weil es längst nicht mehr um fachliches geht, kann ich aus meiner Sicht bei Euch beiden keine Position feststellen, die erkennbar günstiger als die des anderen ist – Ihr steckt demnach gleichtief im Schlamassel und werdet Euch beide irgendwie bewegen müssen.
Viele Grüße, —MisterSynergy (talk) 06:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Benutzersperren sollen das Projekt schützen. Dies hier, wird ihm - zumindest bei dieser Länge - schaden. Ein weiteres Beispiel. Meiner Meinung nach ist die Sperrbegründung Einschüchterungsverhalten / Belästigung: offensichtliche Hetz- / Provokationsversuche, nicht lange nach einem vorherigen Block für ähnliches Verhalten nicht korrekt. Die Sperre erfolgte aufgrund eines Bearbeitungskrieges. Die Verlängerung der urprünglichen Sperre um drei Tage ist meines Erachtens durch keine hiesige Richtline gedeckt. Der Sperre ging übrigens diese Bemerkung voraus, die man auch als PA interpretieren könnte.
Das Problem Xantus's Murrelet ist seit kanpp vier (!) Monaten ungelöst. Nach der vorangegangen Sperre hatte ich mir vorgenommen die weiteren ungelösten Probleme schrittweise zur Sprache zu bringen. Einen Rat wie ich das sinnvoll angehen sollte habe ich nicht bekommen. Ich habe mich gegen WD:AN und für WD:PC entschieden. Offenkundig vergeblich. Es interessiert nicht. Sachargument wie hier werden einfach ignoriert. Das macht lösungsorientierte Diskussionen nahezu unmöglich.
Gruß -Succu (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Dein erster Absatz liest sich in großen Teilen schon viel brauchbarer für eine Entsperrbitte, wenngleich ich ehrlich gesagt eine Einordnung Deines eigenen Verhaltens vermisse. Ich kann ja verstehen, dass Du angesichts der Lage reichlich angefressen bist, aber mit Rschen7754 und Jasper Deng triffst Du am Ende gänzlich die falschen Benutzer. Wenn Du sowas ordentlich, optimalerweise in Englisch, oben in die Entsperrbitte setzen würdest, könnte ich bei WD:AN auf Dein Anliegen hinweisen.
Das es bei Xantus's Murrelet (Q46338167) nicht weitergeht, liegt an der verfahrenen Situation. Sachargumente – echte und scheinbare – zählen da schon lange nicht mehr, denn keiner von Euch beiden möchte jetzt noch irgendwie zurückstecken. In den anderen Objekten mit Editwars ist das letztlich dasselbe Problem. Nach meiner Meinung sollte eine Problemlösung zunächst die fachlichen Aspekte in den betreffenden Objekten außen vor lassen, und stattdessen zwischen Euch beiden vermitteln. Ich glaube, dabei wäre ein Schiedsgericht hilfreich, nicht unbedingt Administration; leider haben wir keines bei Wikidata. Bin grad noch ratlos wie damit umzugehen ist. —MisterSynergy (talk) 08:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Wikidata ist ein mehrsprachiges Projekt. Da sollte man einen Entsperrwunsch auch in der Sprache vorbringen können die man am besten beherrscht. Für mich ist es ungewohnt bei solcherart Konflikten die englische Sprache zu benutzen. Meine Englischkenntnisse sind mehr passiver, den aktiver Art. Hinzu kommt noch der offenbar vom eigenen "Homewiki" geprägte Umgang mit solchen Situationen.
Ich hatte hier auf WD:AN vergeblich um Hilfe gebeten. Offenbar war es naiv von mir durch anpingen diese Hilfe mehrfach einzufordern. Ein einfacher Hinweis auf meiner Diskussionseite, das ihn das stört, wäre eine deeskalierenden Möglichkeit gewesen. Der sperrende Admin hat übrigens vergessen die Sperre auf WD:AN zu erwähnen. Eine wie ich meine hier durchaus übliche Praxis.
Eine wie auch immer geartete Mediation ist sicher begrüßenswert. Allerdings bestehen derartige Probleme nicht nur mit mir.
Gruß --Succu (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Du kannst die Entsperranfrage auch auf deutsch formulieren, es bleiben dann gemäß Wikidata:Administrators nur sehr wenige Administratoren, die ebenfalls angemessene Sprachkenntnisse zur Abarbeitung haben. Ich hoffe, es findet sich dann jemand der sich der Sache annimmt.
Auf den Adminnotizen würde ich dann ein neues Thema schreiben, um eine Lösung losgelöst von Editwars in einzelnen Objekten anzustreben. Ich sehe mich selbst dabei weder auf Deiner noch auf Andy's Seite, sondern ich bin im Sinne des Projektfriedens und irgendwie auch im Sinne Eurer beiden individuellen Zufriedenheit an einer Lösung interessiert. Es ist mir völlig klar, dass das nicht nur Dich oder Dich und Andy betrifft, sondern es gab in den vergangenen Monaten und Jahren verschiedene Angelegenheiten, die auf konventionellem Wege nicht schematisch abzuarbeiten waren. Viele Grüße & bis morgen, —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Sprache ist wohl eher kein Hindernis, wie die Category:Reviewed requests for unblock mit gerade mal 25 Einträgen zeigt. Aussagen wie diese und diese führen zwar erstmal ein wenig vom Thema hier weg, um dann geradewegs darauf zuzusteuern. Es geht bei dieser Sperre nicht um Mr. Mabbett's Verhältnis zu mir oder umgekehrt. Es geht hier um das Verhalten zweier Admins. Sich in die Nesseln zu setzen ist unangenehm, fördert aber die Projektgesundheit. Gruß --Succu (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC) PS: Ich riskiere mal eine Bemerkung: Conflict escalation (Q5160184) und no label (Q27105034) gehörem vmtl. zusammen. --Succu (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Rein quantitativ machen diese Entsperranfragen kaum Arbeit, aber trotzdem bleiben da schnell welche liegen. Aber wie angedeutet, Deutsch ist da kein K.O.-Kriterium.
Diese Sperre hat insofern mit dem größeren Konflikt zu tun, als dass sie in seinem Schlepptau zu Dir gefunden hat, und jetzt einer weiteren Lösung im Wege steht. Macht wenig Sinne, Vermittlungsversuche einzuleiten während Du nicht editieren kannst, finde ich. —MisterSynergy (talk) 05:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Puh, ich habe erst jetzt den Block gesehen und versuche die Hintergründe zu verstehen - scheitere allerdings total daran, den Knackpunkt der Diskussion um Xantus's Murrelet (Q46338167) und Synthliboramphus hypoleucus (Q1276043) nachzuvollziehen und die Gründe für diese extreme Sperrung zu identifizieren - es mag sein, dass es an meinem begrenzten Sprachverständis liegt (das ich aber eigentlich als ganz brauchbar einschätze). Aber vielleicht können wir das dahinterliegende Problem ja trotzdem mal aufhellen.

Was ich verstanden habe (und correct me if I'm wrong): Wir haben eine Art Xantus's Murrelet (Q46338167), die im Rahmen einer Revision in zwei Arten Synthliboramphus hypoleucus (Q1276043) und Scripps's Murrelet (Q3120531) gesplittet wurde, von denen eine den ursprünglichen Namen Synthliboramphus hypoleucus behalten hat - soweit eigentlich nichts Neues, das passiert in der Taxonomie ja ständig; common sense ist - soweit ich verstehe - das daraus zwei Items entstehen, Xantus's Murrelet (Q46338167) aber tatsächlich überflüssig ist (weil das Taxon ja in Synthliboramphus hypoleucus (Q1276043) weitergeführt wird). Mein Problem in änlichen Situationen ist dann in der Regel nur, wie ich die taxon synonym (P1420) für Scripps's Murrelet (Q3120531) in dem Fall angebe, da "Scripps's Murrelet (Q3120531) part" ja nicht machbar ist. Nun könnte man tatsächlich argumentiueren, dass Xantus's Murrelet (Q46338167) = Synthliboramphus hypoleucus (Q1276043) + Scripps's Murrelet (Q3120531) und damit ungleich Synthliboramphus hypoleucus (Q1276043) allein ist - das scheint aber nicht der Punkt zu sein, auf den Andy hinaus will, wenn er Xantus's Murrelet (Q46338167) unbedingt als eigenes Taxon neben Synthliboramphus hypoleucus (Q1276043) behalten will ... und an der Stelle steige ich als Biologe aus: Was will er denn? Ich würde das wirklich gern verstehen.

Und zurück zur Sperre: Ist es in WikiData wirklich üblich, dass ein User, der wissenschaftlich korrekt arbeitet, gesperrt wird, weil sich ein anderer Benutzer, der keinerlei taxonomischen background hat (wie Andy ja auf der Wikimania auf meien Rückfrage zu seinen Wikispecies-Attacken zugab) einfach stur seinen Stiefel durchzieht und die Korrektheit der Einträge ignoriert sowie auf Rückfragen zur Logik derselben nur ausweichend antwortet (und für sein Verhalten dann nicht gesperrt wird)? Wenn dem so ist, sollte ich mein Engagement hier tatsächlich nochmal überdenken und den übernächste Woche in Köln geplanten Workshop mit dem WikiData-Team (zu dem ihr gern und herzlich eingeladen seid,Reisekosten können von WMDE übernommen werden) wohl abblasen. -- Achim Raschka (talk) 08:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Hallo Achim, Danke für Deinen Beitrag. Ein bisschen was zum Hintergrund, aus meiner persönlichen Perspektive: Succu und Andy sind sich nicht grün, und das war „schon immer so“, zumindest was den von mir zu überblickenden Zeitraum von mittlerweile einigen Jahren betrifft. In letzter Zeit ist das irgendwie eskaliert und es gibt einige Editwars, wie zum Beispiel weiter oben in diesem Thema von mir verlinkt. Dabei geht es offenbar auch sehr ums Prinzip, und eine Schwierigkeit ist es, dass nur ganz wenige Benutzer die Fähigkeiten haben, in dem Konflikt fachlich Stellung zu beziehen. Wer hier „wissenschaftlich korrekt arbeitet“, ist in meinen Augen nicht eindeutig feststellbar, auch wenn ich natürlich ein Bauchgefühl habe. Oft ist es aber auch so, dass beide Seiten in gewisser Weise wissenschaftlich korrekte Standpunkte vertreten, die sich halt widersprechen; da kann man schlecht eingreifen, wenn man die fachliche Tragweite nicht versteht. Hier jedenfalls haben wir zwei Benutzer, die beide insgesamt in Wikidata eine Menge guter Arbeit geleistet haben, und sich weitgehend losgelöst von dem Rest der Community behakeln. Weitere Meinungen von fachlich versierten Benutzern sind dabei durchaus hilfreich.
Die Sperre selbst ist, so muss man das wohl sagen, eher Kollateralschaden. Succu ist verständlicherweise von der Sache sehr angenervt; Rschen7754 hatte sich zuletzt in dem Konflikt administrativ betätigt, und Succu forderte von ihm nun Hilfe bei der Lösung des Konfliktes ein – offenbar so sehr dass Rschen7754 sich davon belästigt fühlte (siehe Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Succu). Es gibt bei Wikidata leider keine Institution wie das Schiedsgericht – was auch immer man von ihm halten mag – welches hier zwischen Succu und Andy vermitteln könnte; eine administrative Aufgabe im engeren Sinne ist es jedoch eigentlich auch nicht. Succus Verhalten gegenüber Rschen7754 mag man vielleicht als ungeschickt einordnen, aber für die Pings selbst gab es wohl nicht die Sperre; es ist außerdem nicht offensichtlich klar, was ansonsten zu tun gewesen wäre. Sofern ich seinen Sperrkommentar verstehe, hat Jasper Deng die Sperre für die provokativ wirkenden Nachfragen in dem verlinkten Thema verhängt, ein Verhalten von Succu welches in der Vergangenheit bereits so ähnlich aufgefallen ist. Trotzdem bin ich sehr davon überzeugt, dass diese Sperre einer Überprüfung bedarf, weshalb ich Succu zu einer elaborierteren Entsperranfrage zu überreden versuche. Zurzeit adressiert Succu direkt an Jasper Deng, der über Succus Anliegen aber nicht zu befinden hat und darüber hinaus kein Deutsch versteht … Viele Grüße, —MisterSynergy (talk) 09:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Ich habe die Unlock-Aufforderung geändert. Die Diskussion zeigt am besten auf, warum diese Sperre aufgehoben werden sollte. Template:Unblock (Q6434969) gibt es in deWP nicht und hier auch keine deutsche Lokalisierung. Was immer man dort eigentlich eintragen darf.
Achim hat aus meiner Sicht das Bearbeitungsverhalten von Mr. Mabbett ziemlich gut charakterisiert. Der Kollateralschaden (ein übles Wort) bin nicht ich, sondern den erleidet Wikidata mit jedem Tag. Ich werde mir sehr genau überlegen wieviel meiner freien Zeit ich zukünftig mit dem Verbessern der Wikidata-Qualität verbringe. Zeitaufwändiges beibt dann sich auf der Strecke. Gruß --Succu (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info Special:Diff/669522054MisterSynergy (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Eine grundsätzliche Frage, MisterSynergy: Darf ich Einlassungen wie diese hier kommentieren? --Succu (talk) 21:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Grundsätzlich spricht da aus meiner Sicht nichts gegen, wenn es um die Lösung Deiner aktuellen Situation geht. Ich empfehle ausdrücklich ein äußerst vorsichtiges Vorgehen, insbesondere da Dein Diskussionsstil in dieser Sache umstritten ist, und würde vorher erstmal eine große Kiste Kreide fressen. (Ich bin da pragmatisch und wenn mir das hilft, tue ich sowas; ich verstehe, dass das nicht jeder so machen mag.) Jedes unglücklich gewählte Wort wird Dir, so fürchte ich, zurzeit ungünstig ausgelegt und Du riskierst naturgemäß eine Verschlechterung Deiner Situation, wenns schiefgeht.
Da ich selbst in dieser Sache nicht entscheiden werde, sondern weiter zu vermitteln versuche, kannst Du auch per Email rückfragen bevor Du Dich hier öffentlich äußerst. Ich würde in dem Falle hier transparent machen, dass es da Kontakt gibt, aber nicht was besprochen wurde. Viele Grüße, MisterSynergy (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Wenigstens einer muss die Klappe aufmachen, sonst verändert sich nichts.
"Especially in the latter example" verweist auf eine ziemliche häßliche, mehrere Monate andauernde Auseinandersetzung auf WD:AN und darüber hinaus. Der korrekte Verweis wäre wohl: Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive/2017/05#Continued_problems_with_User:Brya. Da sollte ich zum ersten Mal den Bären nicht reizen und es wurde mir erklärt "You don't have freedom of speech on this site" (=Wikipedia:Free speech (Q11230978)). Die frohe Botschaft dass ich für 24 gesperrt überbrachte dort die Sockenpuppe User:MechQuester.
Hier der Vorfall und mit User:D1gggg ein weiterer "unbegrenzt" gesperrrter Benutzer. --Succu (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Die Anrede "Mr." hat sich der Benutzer selbst erbeten.
Gruß --Succu (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't understand German language, but I really don't want you to be left blocked because I know you have greatly contributed in the taxonomy. So I have two questions: 1) Do you promise not to make personal attack, even if you feel unsatisfied about the treatment? 2) Do you promise not to cause edit wars, even if you believe you edits are right? I hope you to continue to make useful contributions, and always to be gentlemanly. Regards, --Okkn (talk) 07:32, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
    • @Okkn: Yes to both questions. --Succu (talk) 07:38, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Have you read the comments on WD:AN? Don't you curse and abuse other users belligerently in foul language or in an overbearing manner, anymore? If you face something you are not happy with next time, how do you act? --Okkn (talk) 13:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
        • @Okkn: I'll try, but I'm not a native speaker. So it's sometimes hard to know when words become inapproprate. To your second question: I try to discuss things with the comunity. I hope MisterSynergy can help to settle down some open problems. Regards --Succu (talk) 13:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
          • If you get unblocked, I’ll write a comment to the Administrators' noticeboard to make a plan for this case; I plan to be involved in these discussions anyway. —MisterSynergy (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
            • The admin who blocks you requests you to demonstrate explicitly that you understand the reason for the block. Can you do that? --Okkn (talk) 05:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
              • I don't know how this should be done. His opinion why he blocked me is pretty clear. BTW three admins are supporting the unblock request. Regards --Succu (talk) 16:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
                • Don't be angry. You haven't reflect on what you have done in your own words, in English. If you don't do this, I can't do anything without the agreement of the admin blocking you. Regards, --Okkn (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
                  • @Okkn: If the community gots the impression that I'm creating a "toxic environment" than I'm really sorry for this. This was never my intention. --Succu (talk) 06:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
                    • So let me speak a little bit more about why I blocked you. I never doubted that your intent was to try to be helpful. However, especially when dealing with cultural differences, intent and impact are distinct things. I blocked you because of the impact your way of discussing had on the community, which I decided I could not excuse due to a language barrier because there are other native German speakers on this project who don't have this issue. For you to be unblocked, I want you to be cognizant of the impact your words have on other members of the community. If they seem to be getting aggravated by your words, you should notice that and take a step back; if you are unsure about the way to word something, you are free to ask someone bilingual in English and German (such as the two commenters MisterSynergy and Okkn here) for feedback on your intended wording.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@MisterSynergy, Okkn, Pamputt:, I'm sorry to ping you (not sure I'm allowed to do this), but the three of you supported my unblock request. I'm not sure how to proceed. Maybe a comment at WD:AN helps to release this block? Hopefully --Succu (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

There is already my comment in the WD:AN thread, but besides Okkn, Pamputt and the already involved admins it didn’t really attract enough attention. There is unfortunately a seriously shortage of admin workforce which probably contributes to this situation as well. I haven’t a clue, to be honest … —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't object to the Succu's unblock. --Okkn (talk) 10:23, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
It is indeed so that few admins are inclined to get involved in cases like this. Presumably, there are two reasons for this: 1) a degree of formal training is required to be able to judge such cases, and most admins won't have gotten this (it is not part of the admin selection process) and 2) getting involved entails risk (WMF projects often are political minefields).
        As to understanding the reason for the block, the one common factor of all these blocks flying round that stands out are provocations and harassment by a user who shall not be named. This makes it difficult to draw conclusions. - Brya (talk) 05:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
That is indeed my observation as well. So harassment is ok when the "indispensible ones" are the perpetrator. That is why unpleasantness and bullying remains so prevalent. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 07:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
@GerardM: Again, harassment claims need big evidence. No reasonable observer would think I am targeting Succu and trying to make their life hell or anything like that. If I were not involved, I would block you again for that comment because you clearly did not understand why I blocked you. And I am not willing to unblock Succu for rather similar reasons.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
@Jasper Deng: I am not the subject here. The subject is how people are treated. In my altercation with you. You said that you would unblock me when I promised to refrain from any more comments. I did and I was not unblocked. Here there is a similar pattern. What is also similar is that the severity of what you think reasonable is not reasonable. A large group of administrators disagree with you. Also Brya broached a subject, I find there is merit in what is said and you attack me personally while not addressing the issue raised. That much is clear. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 07:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Succu, please consider to take action to fulfil conditions proposed by Jasper Deng to close this and future issues. It should not be a "yes or no" from your side, but a written statement of yours. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 10:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • One condition had added. Succu, if and only if you explicitly express your acceptance this unblock condition, you are goind to be unblocked. We intend not to follow any further procedures regarding this case. --Okkn (talk) 10:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I postpone my reaction here until this question is answered. --Succu (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC) And the following ones: --Succu (talk) 21:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng[edit]

  1. Would you please subscribe to one of your rules: Assert bad faith on the part of others when no such bad faith exists; he should not even do this implicitly. Blocking my Bot which does around 25,000 edits per day (750,000 edits in a month) is not in accordance to a fundamental principle on Wikidata Assume good faith, in my opinion clearly shown in SuccuBot must be blocked. --Succu (talk) 20:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC) PS: I overlooked this response by Jasper Deng in the forementioned issue. --Succu (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  2. Could you please give an example were I - in your opinion - taunt another user? --Succu (talk) 20:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  3. enWp topics like Wikipedia:Free speech (Q11230978), Wikipedia:Don't poke the bear (Q15868164) and finally Wikipedia:Don't take the bait (Q14363154) you are using here to block comtributers here have no standing at WD. --Succu (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

You commented to User:GerardM:„ ... I am not willing to unblock Succu for rather similar reasons” Could you please elaborate your statement a little bit? What have both blocks in common? Thanks. --Succu (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

You mentioned Wikidata:Use common sense, which is intrestingly linked here to Project:Ignore all rules (Q4656211). Via see also "appeal to common sense" fallacy this context lead me to another list of possible blocking reasons: en:List of fallacies. Your motives about the blocking duration remain unclear to me. --Succu (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC) Found your statement The block's length is such that you are forced to confront this issue, without an indefinite block but not the reason behind it. So the next one may be indefinite like Rschen7754 informed Brya? I have no idea why such kind of threat helps here. --Succu (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Blocking your bot is required by WD:Alternate accounts, and I would not have done so had it not been pointed out. When your block expires, you should feel free to establish an RfC changing that, but as of now, I am bound by policy to do that.
  • "They are enwiki essays" is a red herring. Because your engagement in those behaviors had a negative effect on the community, as observed by me, you should not engage in them regardless. Hence why you are blocked.
  • Your block is similar to Gerard's in the sense that neither of you agreed to my conditions for early unblock and hence both of you (as of now) stay(ed) blocked for the full duration.
  • Fallicious reasoning was not specifically a block reason, but the concept of fallicious reasoning is helpful in explaining how your words had an inflammatory effect on the community.
  • Instead of trying to poke holes in my blocking rationale, I think you can make this much easier for everyone, including yourself, if you agree to the conditions I stated at AN.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
If I understand your explanarity comments to your block and it's duration here (your words had an inflammatory effect on the community, as observed by you at WD:AN) you belief I'm acting as an incendiarist ("Brandstifter") here and this is the rational behind this block?
Is the only tool in the admin pocket to resolve a confrontational discussion to threat and block contributers here? In my opinion admins should help to cool down conflicts and help to solve problems (See also: Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard#Another_heading). I think admin actions should be minimally invasive to reach the best for the project. This one has a reverse effect.
This is a multilangual project. Pointing to enWP essays (as done in your unblock conditions) is not helpfull for users not familar with enWP, as myself, and not a red herring (Q572959).
You are not bound by policy to block my bot, because of Wikimedia:Assume good faith (Q4663356) and Project:Ignore all rules (Q4656211), but you decided to play by the book.
I don't think you as the involved blocking admin (neither of you agreed to my conditions for early unblock) are in the position to phrase conditions for an early unblock. This certainly should be done by your admin colleagues.
--Succu (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
There are two days left to show a little bit of AGF at your side. --Succu (talk) 19:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Succu, note that I am in Germany right now without a good connection (<100 kbps) so this will be my only reply until the 28th of this month.
You seem to assume that undesirable behavior is necessarily in bad faith. My apologies if you did not mean that, but saying that I am assuming bad faith by blocking you shows that you have not read what I said about intent versus impact. Good-faith behavior can be disruptive, as is the case here. In fact, if I truly did not think you were acting in good faith, the block would have been indefinite, possibly without talk page or email access.
It is not my job to teach you and/or any other editor how to interact collegially beyond reasonable limits. But it is my job to issue blocks when it is necessary to remove the behavior in question from the project, hence why administrators are often depicted with a mop. As such, if I am not satisfied that the block no longer is having that effect, then I will be unwilling to support an unblock. In particular, if the wider community believes that you should be unblocked, then so be it. However, I, as an individual, will oppose such an action unless my conditions are satisfied, and multiple other admins have agreed that my unblock conditions are reasonable.
Yes, I am bound by policy to block your bot, because I did not state that this block only applies to this account, so your alternate account SuccuBot should not be editing. But because it continued editing, I had to make that block to enforce the policy at hand.
The fact that you are still trying to find fault with me, rather than reflect on your own actions, means that the block is still doing its job, and I hence oppose lifting it early. I do not understand what you find unreasonable about the conditions I left.
You have a right to your opinion, but it is a fallicious argument to express anything beginning with "In my opinion" as something I have to accept.
I would rather not have blocked you, but in your particular case, I had already given you multiple warnings over multiple different AN discussions you participated in (like the ones I linked at AN; @Micru: I do not issue blocks of this kind without prior warning). You have made no reasonable effort to clear up any confusion you had over such warnings. Thus I assumed you understood what I meant by them.
The bottom line is, if your behavior is a hindrance to others' ability to contribute to this project, then you are not welcome to participate, whether your intentions are good or not, and regardless of the quality or quantity of your contributions. I have better things to do while I am in Europe than continue to point out the behavior for which you are blocked.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
If I'm right you resume this admin action of yours as: In fact, if I truly did not think you were acting in good faith, the block would have been indefinite, possibly without talk page or email access. Maybe it's my job to teach you something about how WD works? --Succu (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
multiple other admins have agreed that my unblock conditions are reasonable - Did they? Could you please ping them? --Succu (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Micru[edit]

@Jasper Deng: Thanks for the ping, I understand your frustration, and I understand that you don't issue blocks without warning, however I think that we always need to make an effort to understand the position of the other person, and see what point they are trying to make. Maybe they do not have the tools to express properly their own frustrations. You said it is not your job to "teach [anyone] how to interact collegially", but then whose job is it?

@Succu: You have been warned about inappropriate behaviour, you have been asked to change it, but you have persisted on it, forcing thus your block. Do you see it the same way or am I missing something here?

I want also to point out that my intervention here is for the sake of harmony in the community. I do not hold any stakes on this issue, I am not an admin, and my sole interest is that this conflict can be resolved in the most positive way for everyone, so that the whole Wikidata community can benefit.--Micru (talk) 23:33, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Wie gehts weiter?[edit]

Hey Succu, ich verstehe ebenso wenig wie Du, was Du hier hättest liefern sollen. Nach meinem Gefühl hast Du in der ersten Woche der Sperre durchaus durchblicken lassen, dass Dein Kommunikationsstil im Spannungsfalle gelegentlich besser sein könnte. Jedenfalls ist mir nicht klar, warum Jasper Deng das nicht erkennt und wie Du ihn davon hättest überzeugen können. So läuft die Sperre vermutlich in zwei Tagen einfach aus, für die Wikidata-Administration ist das sicher kein Ruhmesblatt. Was das nun alles gebracht haben soll ist mir rätselhaft, und auch die Länge der Sperre empfinde ich angesichts des Anlasses weiterhin als deutlich überzogen. Dennoch glaube ich, dass Du das an diesem Punkt einfach nur noch abhaken kannst (und wohl auch solltest).

Wie auch immer, wie soll es nun weitergehen? Bei der Lösung des eigentlichen Problems konnten wir ja leider keinen Millimeter vorwärts kommen. Ich stehe weiter vermittelnd für Hilfe zur Verfügnung, möchte mich aber auch nicht aufdrängen. Es wäre aber wohl insgesamt wenig hilfreich, wenn zeitnah der nächste Ärger ins Haus steht… Hast Du also Pläne, Ideen oder Wünsche? Viele Grüße! —MisterSynergy (talk) 22:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)