Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2014/03

This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion.

ReimannBot

is adding a lot of obsolete properties. @FelixReimann: please STOP.--GZWDer (talk) 16:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I paused it. But in the deletion discussion, it is clear that the opinion of many is that we still need this information until we can switch to P171. Thus, my bot adds only P71 and P74 to those items, which do not have a P171 yet. These items have at most only a taxon name and possibly a rank. This is not sufficient to identify them for example in a database. If you have a look at the exceptions of the constraint violations of P225, you see that there are several thousand items which have identical names but one is for example a plant and the other one an animal. Thus, I add to those P71 and P74 to get them identifiable and I would like to go on with this task if you do not mind.  — Felix Reimann (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course, if items haven P171 and, thus, are part of the hierarchy of life, P71 and P74 can be safely removed. SuccuBot does this already for P77, which is also deprecated.  — Felix Reimann (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

@GZWDer: I think @FelixReimann: should complete his bot task. The outcome are a lot more sourced statements. --Succu (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please continue your work. Obsolete properties are better than nothing as they can still get removed/replaced later. -- Bene* ^t_a^l_k 21:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

@Hazard-SJ:: Please unblock. See this discussion. --Succu (talk) 06:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

@FelixReimann: Unblocked. -- Lavallen (talk) 06:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that.  Hazard SJ  07:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for unblocking. As said above, we all agree that we should try to move away from these properties (I also voted pro at PFD) but it is better to have these props instead of no information at all (for >>500000 items). If you have further questions or another opionion, feel free to ask me. The idea is to add these properties, keep them marked as obsolete (that no client starts to rely on them) and try to add P171s for them, which is easier if you have basic information about the taxon.  — Felix Reimann (talk) 11:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

@Succu, FelixReimann: There's gotta' be a smarter way to be adding the (necessary) properties of parent taxon, taxon name, and taxon rank. It seems very odd and rather inefficient to me that we've got one bot adding them and then one bot removing them and then adding the correct claim…. --Izno (talk) 13:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Let the taskforce use the method they think is the most efficient. -- Lavallen (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your trust. 1st SuccuBot does not remove the claims which my bot adds. It removes the senseless higher level properties like kingdom and phylum. 2nd it is a problem of data quality. The bot created articles in some of the smaller wikis are of questionable quality. If we would import that we would create a lot - really: a lot - of errors. Thus we do this 2 step approach: importing the possibly wrong information directly to the corresponding but obsolete properties and use them to identify the items and add correct claims with hopefully at least one order of magnitude less errors.  — Felix Reimann (talk) 07:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I, also was unhappy to see these added. Very discouraging. It seems unbelievable that it is not possible to add P171 instead (this requires no extra information). BTW these new claims are not sourced (just an "imported from umpity Wikipedia") and they could not be sourced: all these bot-created articles go back to ITIS, which means that the source is unknown. - Brya (talk) 06:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

User:HHubi and removals of sitelinks

Hi guys,

Can you take a look at this user's edits? For some reason, he/she bulkily removes sitelinks from many items related to military and marine ranks but does not seem to add these links to other items. Yesterday I even saw an empty item, so it may now be deleted.

I asked the user about his/her edits but he/she has not answered yet. Can you advice me what to do in such a situation? --Michgrig (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I think you did everything right in this situation. A notice on the user's talk page is necessary in all cases and posting here is also a good idea. I think we should wait for a reply of User:HHubi and if he/she continues removing sitelinks we can take further action. -- Bene* ^t_a^l_k 17:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The user did not answer although I left a message on his talk page in De-Wiki (and he edited after that message). From the history of items he edited, I see that some of his edits have been reverted. I've reverted some of other edits.

And one more thing. Could one of the admins check the deleted item(s) that were edited by this user: maybe they need to be restored. --Michgrig (talk) 09:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

After I restored Q1220909 there are no more deleted edits left. That item actually had been merged with another one, but I don't think that merge has been correct, as Q1220909 explicitely is about a uniform of the German Bundeswehr, while Q4464974 is about a kind of uniform in general. --YMS (talk) 09:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

169.139.1.21

Vandalism-only IP, already blocked for 1 year in enwiki, please block it.--GZWDer (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done Proxy block by user:Vogone--16:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Where do you see that it's a proxy address? The IP belongs to a school, so blocking it could stop hundreds of legitimate users of that IP from editing Wikidata. --YMS (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a school proxy and autoblock was not enabled. Vogone talk 17:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

So it's not an open proxy that anyone can use who wants to stay anonymous, but one that everybody has to use that wants to go online from that school? Such blocks may actually cost us new members, while preventing only a handful of vandalism edits per year. --YMS (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

@Vogone: Do you object to me shortening the block to 1 year and the reason to {{Blocked school}}? This is definitely not an open proxy (it's a closed one) and 5 years is excessive for a school's first offense.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't. I indeed hit the wrong block reason on the drop-down list as it seems. Vogone talk 12:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Properties with limited answers

There seem to be a lot of cases where people add the wrong entry by mistake on properties which have a limited number of correct answers. Why do we not simply restrict the values that can be entered? For example if someone tries to enter woman (Q467) for Property:P21 it will say "Invalid link, please enter one of the values listed at Property talk:P21." Then we can have a note on the talk page that says if anyone wants to propose a new value that can be added as an answer they can bring it up for discussion there on the talk page. We could take it a step further and have the correct answers the only ones selectable from a drop down menu. It would save having to constantly comb through tag filters reverting and telling people the correct item numbers. TLDR: If the only answers are "Yes" or "No" why allow any other answers to be entered? Del_♉sion23 (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Because Wikidata developers have explicitly rejected such. --Izno (talk) 00:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Denny's blog post on this is worth reading. However, he also suggests "that smarter suggestions would be great". I had it in the back of my mind that the Wikidata Toolki partly was about such a suggestion interface, but I don't read that there now. --YMS (talk) 13:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC) PS: Ah, I was mixing two university projects up, it's the entity suggester that should be able to do so some time. --YMS (talk) 13:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I disagree with Denny, and the reasons for that are delivered quite eloquently by Emw and John H in the comments section underneath. The argument over what constitutes a valid entry for gender will happen anyway regardless of whether we restrict the number of valid entries or have the status quo, as Property talk:P21 shows. In the meantime we have people adding woman (Q467) for Property:P21 and it takes up people's time changing it to the correct item that could be spent elsewhere. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 17:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Q7813)

I am considering editprotect items liks Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Q7813). Not because they are vandalised, but since to many users do not know how to handle Wikisource-related items. I now have a hell of a job to restore these items, since good edits have been mixed with problematic. -- Lavallen (talk) 06:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I would be open to protecting items for that reason, but I wonder if it would help - I imagine most admins wouldn't know what they were doing there either (I know I wouldn't). Ajraddatz (Talk)

(edit conflict) I think it's due to lack of awareness of Wikisource-related policy. I'm personally not a fan of blanket protection.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Neither am I a fan of protections, but I hope admins would consider why an item is protected before they are merging them. -- Lavallen (talk) 06:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Could an abusefilter with a warning be a better solution? I would be glad to make one that warns people who are messing with it (and similar items), hopefully providing some guidance to them at the same time. Ajraddatz (Talk) 06:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe, I know to little about how abusefilters can be designed to know. Then, observe that also admins should be affected by it! -- Lavallen (talk) 06:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll look into making one tomorrow. Bed time for tonight! Ajraddatz (Talk) 06:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I ate breakfast one hour ago!

Now Cycn tried to do something in some of the related items, I do not know exactly what.

I did start with merging, but I decided to reverse it and think it through another time. Mahir256 (talk • contribs • logs) nominated the Wikisource editions to be merged into the general item. - - (Cycn/talk) 09:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

They should be kept as long as they are not related to Wikisource-disambigs, like the link to svwikisource is today. Wikisource can have three kinds of disambigs, author-related, work-related and word-related. The first and the third can be treated as WP-sitelinks, but the second should be merged with the work-item, while the editions-items should have stand-alone-items, with unique properties for each edition. All according to WD:WS. -- Lavallen (talk) 12:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure if we have any good guideline for the labels in edition-items yet. @Billinghurst: et al, any ideas? -- Lavallen (talk) 08:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Late to the scene and not sure that I have my head fully around the history. Let me see if I can summarise (maybe generally). We have a 'master level document which (w|c)ould have a defined author, original language, original publishing date, publisher, .... Then we with spawned language level documents/translations, presumably with their own translators. defined language, publishing date, publisher. There may be a sound recording of each, which in itself is a separate rendition (maybe separate publication, with its own reader), though no difference in the text. So to me it is a matter of determining what is the item. So we need to determine a hierarchy. Probably needs to be diagrammatic, and it will not be one singular or simple flow. I think that this is going to make it harder before we make it simpler, so ...

• Original publication (first edition) Q₁ > second edition Q₂ > third edition Q₃
• Original publication (first edition) Q₁ > oral version Q_1o1
• Original publication (first edition) Q₁ > translation into a language Q_1t1
• Original publication (first edition) Q₁ > second edition Q₂ > translation into a language Q_2t1
• Original publication (first edition) Q₁ > second edition Q₂ > translation into a language Q_2t1 > 2nd edition of translation Q_2t2
• Original publication (first edition) Q₁ > translation into a language Q_1t1 > oral version Q_1t1o1
• etc.

So the simple question is what is a Q item, what makes it specific and unique? Once that is determined, then we can work out how we treat the elements. Until that is worked out, no common platform, etc. There is a lot riding on identifying the peak of each work, each Q₁ that spawns all the subsidiaries. This is because many works will only have a Q₁ and will never spawn second volumes, translations or oral recordings.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

There are some oral versions in Q7813 now, but I have not analyzed them. Q7813 is more difficult than many others, since it's not obvious what the original look like. UN have several official languages, and I guess they published it in all of them? The Swedish are here is in two versions, both from the Swedish goverment, but with very different vocabulary, since the language has changed since 1948. -- Lavallen (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not saying that the above is necessarily right, it was my extrapolation. I was hoping to spark a conversation for those who guide the project to help with defining the principle. The simple (complex?) question is what defines an item? In your example, if they published simultaneously as a printed form, then they are all Q₁. Then it is a decision whether the oral versions are all simultaneously published too. There will always be works that are exceptions, if we define the principle we have a standard measure.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Apply a semi-protection to project:Sandbox (Q3938)

My concern is about IPs or new users who are convinced Q3938 is the sandbox of Wikidata—which is Douglas Adams (Q4115189) instead—and use it without prior reading the description or the huge notice in the talk page. I believe a semi-protection would be inoffensive for "good editors" but an effective deterrent in case of vandalisms/test edits. — TintoMeches, 16:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree.  Done. --Stryn (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Close of a three month old PFD

Could an uninvolved admin please close WD:PFD#mountain range (P295)? --Izno (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. I'm not sure what links need to be fixed, though. Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

@Ajraddatz: There are over 2000 items using this property. Links to the property should be removed so the property can be deleted. --Jakob (talk) 00:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Lovely. Can a bot remove them? Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Importing problems and threatening admins

Dear admins, I would like to report ZeaForUs (talk • contribs • logs) and his dynamic IP 151.40.186.86 (talk • contribs • logs) for obvious trolling, importing problems fromnl wiki even after fair warnings from several admins and threatening admins. This behavior cannot be accepted and is harmful for Wikidata. Please do something about it since this is getting way out of line and something needs to be done especially after this edit. JurgenNL (talk) 09:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Out of interest for transparency, I invited JurgenNL to open this thread himself because ZeaForUs' behavior is mainly directed at him and @TBloemink:. I personally think such behavior is blockable - the only question being, is it time?--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

If he refuses to stop, I'd say so. --Rschen7754  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rschen7754 (talk • contribs) at 09:37, 5 March 2014‎ (UTC).

Not sure if this is related, but these edits do not look good to me. Very POV. I've made them more neutral. ElfjeTwaalfje (talk) 11:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Blatant (although not too serious) BLP violations (it's a foundation policy).--Jasper Deng (talk) 11:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked him 1 week for intimidating behaviour/harassment and BLP-violating. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 11:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I also revision deleted the edits linked above. Maybe also oversight is needed. Perhaps there are more edits like this done by the user. -- Bene* ^t_a^l_k 17:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I checked until August 2013, and only found Elizabeth Báthory (Q170846), which I think is warranted. (But check the difference between German and English descriptions). Please note that in Desi Bouterse (Q57667) my reverts still contain the descriptions you tried to revision delete. ElfjeTwaalfje (talk) 02:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

He has another IP address now (he has a dynamic IP). He's evading is block using IP 151.40.183.151 (talk • contribs • logs). JurgenNL (talk) 13:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I see no direct link atm besides similar ISPs. I'm definitely watching it though I feel blocking at the moment is bad faith unless you can point to me a definitive 'yes I am the same guy' type comment. John F. Lewis (talk) 15:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, per discussion with Sjoerddebruin, blocked for three days. John F. Lewis (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Block-evasion again by 151.40.249.210 (talk • contribs • logs). Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 08:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

His block was changed into an indefinitely block because he kept evading his block with dynamic IP addresses. Today he is evading is block again: 151.40.181.63. JurgenNL (talk) 13:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

With no other contributors on that range, I've soft-blocked 151.40.128.0/17 for one month without talk page access. Ajraddatz (Talk) 16:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Elisabeth van Reute

• https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q75141
• https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisabeth_van_Reute

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2797729

--Lidewij C J. (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

 Merged --Kolja21 (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Logged-out bot / bot non connecté

En: I have blocked 109.12.253.139 (talk • contribs • logs) because it appears to be a logged-out or unauthorized bot, per the edit summaries. I'm seeking review of this action from other administrators.

Fr: J'ai bloqué 109.12.253.139 (talk • contribs • logs) parce qu'il semble d'être un bot non connecté ou non permis, selon les résumés des modifications. Je voudrais des reveus de cet action per autres administrateurs.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Legitimate block, in my opinion. --Jakob (talk) 02:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

A good block.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

@Thieol: The bot is most probably yours. You should not let your bot edit while logged out, and can use the AssertEdit to ensure that.--GZWDer (talk) 11:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Duplicate Items

• Q3504310
• Q12973126

Can anyone please merge them after verifying, I'm not good at those languages--Manuspanicker (talk) 05:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

All fixed. There was some mess. --Stryn (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Mass revert/rollback

Hi! Is there a way to mass revert/rollback the last contributions of an user when you are admin? Thanks. — Ayack (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Add to your common.js: importScriptURI('//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');. On the left site of the search box, you get a dropdown function with a "rollback all" link. JurgenNL (talk) 13:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! — Ayack (talk) 14:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Sainte Alberte

Moved from WD:BN.

Hi, could you please merge the following entries : Q4063375 + Q3464454. This is the same person, see w:fr:Alberte d'Agen. genium ⟨✉⟩ 04:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not done (pas fait) They are not the same (the dates of death are not alike)/ ces ne sont pas la même personne (les dates de mourir ne sont pas même). Also, merge requests usually go to either Wikidata:Project chat or Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard, since this page is only for bureaucrat attention / En outre, les demandes de merge vont sur Wikidata:Bistro ou Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard, parce que cette page est seulement pour l'attention d'un bureaucrat.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, merge requests go to WD:RFD not the Project Chat or AN. --Jakob (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Guusje Nederhorst: Q2081558

Could someone please check the description in English. I don't understand it, but cannot think of it being appropriate. -- Pütz M. (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

It was indeed wrong, fixed. --Stryn (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

How to handle item Q101176?

The German sitelink points to a person, the English to the company founded by this person. How should this be handled? What statements might be applicable? -- Pütz M. (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I've split the two items, are different. --ValterVB (talk) 19:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Pütz M. (talk) 21:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

hoax pages imported here

Rance 05 (talk • contribs • logs) creates a hoax page cross-wiki and imports these articles on Wikidata. See e.g. here for evidence. I have blocked him for a week. ElfjeTwaalfje (talk) 21:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Deleting label

https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q986728&curid=936371&diff=116749778&oldid=116749723

user:관인생략 is deleting Korean labels without Kowiki sitelinks. Please observe him. I tried to explain it but he doesn't understand. --Konggaru (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

He should first understand that structured data != interwiki. — by Revi레비 at 16:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

So is this topic related with this discussion? What's the point of talking about this? --관인생략 (talk) 16:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Because you said "Structured data = interwiki" ? — by Revi레비 at 16:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

That's not related to our topic here - deleting label. Please continue arguing about this in my user talk page. Sorry mate. --관인생략 (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

He ignore my talk and just said "Why?" I'll revert his all deleting-label contributions. --Konggaru (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

if he cannot understand what wikidata is, I think I'll get a hard time--Konggaru (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, we are discussing about this at User talk:관인생략#레이블 삭제 자제 요청, and User:콩가루 refused/not persuaded others with logical discussion. Also, what does "deleting Korean labels without Kowiki sitelinks." mean, 콩가루? Did you want to say "Deleting Korean Labels which does not have Kowiki sitelinks"? Make sure that you speak relevant level of English so I should not misunderstood by someone. --관인생략 (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Adding labels as many as I can is rule of wikidata. Do not need logic. --Konggaru (talk) 16:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's a bit of "Original Research". All wikidata item needs English label, but not Korean one. Please see Help:Label#No page on English Wikipedia. --관인생략 (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes for latter, but no for OR. Having more lables and description is encouraged, and you don't have any reason to delete it. — by Revi레비 at 16:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

English should translated first because it is a primary system language in Wikidata. However, I can't find any single sentence that all data should have Korean label though there's no any Korean Wikimedia project items. I already discussed about this at my user talk page - if there's only label in a document, it is easy to think as there exists Korean item so they pass to link it. --관인생략 (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Every item should have labels in as much languages as possible. While English may be the most important one, there usually is absolutely no reason to remove existing labels in other languages (exceptions may be language variants like en-gb or simple), mo matter whether there is an English label and/or a sitelink in that other language. Please stop doing so. --YMS (talk) 07:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying that i will keep deleting korean labels without korean item (actually i did not violate 3RR. user:콩가루 did.), but there's no guidelines about this. So I think that this should be discussed on a community board, not admin noticeboard. --관인생략 (talk) 03:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

(no WD:3RR here.) It is not thing should be discussed: All item, whether it has kowiki langlink, can have korean label and descriptions. — by Revi레비 at 03:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I can't understand what you are saying. Is this right - "It is not necessary to be discussed: All item, whether it has kowiki langlink or not, can have Korean label and descriptions."? So that means it cannot have Korean label and descriptions because it is not a "must" thing. --관인생략 (talk) 04:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no item who cannot have a label and a description. It can be more or less simple to find a good label and description, but that is not a reason to remove a number of labels. -- Lavallen (talk) 04:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Even if an item do not have a ko-sitelink, the item can still be used in statements who affects items who are closly or distantly related to ko-projects. -- Lavallen (talk) 08:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but naming data without a korean item could make edit war except a ko.wikiproject didn't make a document yet or there's no official translation. --관인생략 (talk) 03:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

It is different matter, and you don't have to worry about that before edit war happens. — by Revi레비 at 03:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

So there actually the argument happens in Q986728 whether "노비 노비스케" or "노석구" will be the Korean label. That's why I deleted the label. --관인생략 (talk) 04:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

In such cases, add one as a label and one as an alias. Then you will be able to find it no matter which term you use to search, and everything is fine. It does not matter which title the article in kowiki would get, and if you like, you may change the label of the item once the article is created, to match the label with the title. By removing the label, the item won't be found regardless what you search, and wherever this item is linked, no Korean name for that link can be displayed at all, and that both simply sucks. --YMS (talk) 07:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Have a look at Reasonator to see what we can do with Korean labels on items with no KoWiki articles. Filceolaire (talk) 12:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Hym411

• Wikidata:사랑방/Archive/2013/10
  • "또한 그렇게 치자면 Q14204246 같은 문서는 벌써 진즉에 RfD 올라가서 지워져야 했겠군요?"
  • "왜죠? 님 주장에 따르자면 어짜피 빈 문서잖아요."
• User talk:Hym411/보존/2013/10#확인 부탁
  • "주의가 가능할 때 라는 건 수틀리시면 차단이라도 요청하시겠다는 말씀으로 들립니다만?"
  • "비아냥거리는 걸로 들리나요? 상당히 불쾌한데요. 귀하가 무슨 권한으로 주의가 가능한 때와 가능하지 않은 때를 구분하시는지 궁금하군요."
• [1] assault me on his userpage after the discussion above. This is a common quote by ko:진중권 to ridicule others who don't listen to others. [2] also added this quote on his userpage, but after the argument he deleted that quote.
• Using wrong English babel to confuse others. I also argued this before at User talk:Hym411/보존/2013/10#확인 부탁, and you can also see that User:Vogone agreed (maybe, I'm not sure that why he wrote '+1') about this point. This makes so hard to communicate others because he don't speak relevant language of en-3. Compare how User:YMS and Vogone speaks English with him.

I'm not sure that how to translate the nuance of those speech, but I don't think that he is respecting others while discussing. he is keep insinuating against me. --관인생략 (talk) 03:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see what is wrong here. After translating those text snippets via Google Translate, I didn't find anything wrong with them. I would just suggest you to leave the case, and respect Wikidata rules as discussed on topic above of this. I don't understand your second point at all (Using wrong English babel to confuse others). You can't assess what is everyone's English skill and it does not even belong here. Regards, --Stryn (talk) 06:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the translator does not indicates en:Korean honorifics. That is why I'm saying he makes fool of me. --관인생략 (talk)

Q15963603

It is portal subpage delete? or not?--DangSunM (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I just going to delete. But since It is not included on WD:N/EC If it is problem, please visit my talk page to ask restore it.--DangSunM (talk) 00:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know, yes. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

RFB User:89.98.223.249

89.98.223.249 (talk • contribs • logs) seems to be a harmful kind of deletionist. |FDMS 21:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Warned (By John F. Lewis, blarg edit conflicts). If he keeps it up ping here again for a block. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't notice that (edits were only partly reverted). |FDMS 21:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC) The right answer would have been thanks. |FDMS 21:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The Night of the Comet

• https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q7754141
• https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q15964858

--Lidewij C J. (talk) 23:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done.  Merged--DangSunM (talk) 23:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Deletion request

I'd like to get rid of some user pages which have the .js suffix, I tried to tag them with {{Delete}} but that obviously failed. Can a kind admin please delete them? They are User:Underlying lk/import statements.js and User:Underlying lk/reasonatortest.js.--Underlying lk (talk) 15:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

A kind admin has  done that. -- Lavallen (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!--Underlying lk (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)