Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2016/01

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

113.174.204.68

Special:Contributions/113.174.204.68 please block the vandal. --Jklamo (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Warned. May be blocked if they don't stop.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

WhyPayMore Dental

User:WhyPayMore Dental promotion/vandalism only account. please ban. Hakan·IST 18:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done --Rschen7754 18:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Removal of sources by User:EncycloPetey

User:EncycloPetey countinously removes vaild sources in Bryidae (Q133611) and Anthoceros laevis (Q17295302) with flimsy reasons. This leads to some contraint violations. Please tell him to stop his behaivior. --Succu (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I am removing incorrect information. Succu persists in adding misleading information to the wrong data items, and refuses to discuss the issue. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
To whit: His additions at Bryidae (Q133611) are based on a misinterpretation of the source, as I explained in the discussion at Wikidata talk:WikiProject Taxonomy. In short, his source ([1]) does include a taxon called "Bryidae" within a taxon called "Equisetopsida", but these are not the same taxa to which he ascribes the relationship. He has confused different taxa that bear the same name, much like adding biographical data to the wrong "John Smith". --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Please notice the discussion at WikiProject_Taxonomy. After the next revert Anthoceros laevis (Q17295302) is incomplete again. The removed source for Bryidae (Q133611) (A phylogenetic classification of the land plants to accompany APG III (Q13626292)) is used multiple times. The relationship to the paren is used by Tropicos in the same way. The real reason for his remove is that he thinks our way to model taxa is wrong. --Succu (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Tropicos applies the taxon names in the same way as the cited source, but Wikidata does not. The source cited explicitly states that they are defining the name "Equisetopsida" as the embryophytes Embryophyte (Q192154), and not as the horsetails Equisetopsida (Q134677) as Succu seems to think. Succu has misunderstood the source. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
That's you persional interpretation, restricted to one usage of this source. The same is true for the other removal. --Succu (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Personal interpretation has nothing to do with it. The source, at the top of page 123 says: "Table 1. A working classification of class Equisetopsida [embryophytes] (Fig. 1)" The source itself makes the connection explicitly. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
but Wikidata does not... Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (Q4657775). --Succu (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Look at the content of the two data items. Embryophyte (Q192154) is Embryophytes, and is where embryophyte information should be placed. But Equisetopsida (Q134677) "Equisetopsida" is the horsetails, as evidenced by all of the wikilinks on that data item. There is also Equisetopsida sensu lato (Q5384603) "Equisetopsida sensu lato" which is the Equisetopsida in the sense used in the cited article. Wikidata is clearly using "Equisetopsida" in several different senses, and the one in the source article does not match the one at Equisetopsida (Q134677) to which Succu has repeatedly and incorrectly added the information. Wikidata has a separate item for the embryophytes.
Further, "Bryidae", as used in the article, is the "mosses" moss (Q25347), and not merely the "peristomate mosses" Bryidae (Q133611). Look at the content of the Wikidata pages instead of just the names on the pages. Names apply variously to different taxa, just as they do to people. Consider this recent addition of a link to the "moss" data item. Yes, the linked item is "moss", but it is the municipality in Norway, not the division of plants. Just because two things have the same name does not make them the same. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
This is the wrong page to discuss taxonomic issues. It did not explain more than ten reverts of yours in Anthoceros laevis (Q17295302) in the last three days with untrue accusations like „don't revert without discussion“. The discussion started at your talk page and you refused to discuss the matter at the right place. --Succu (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Succu, if this is the wrong place to discuss your assertion that "User:EncycloPetey countinously removes vaild sources in Bryidae (Q133611) and Anthoceros laevis (Q17295302) with flimsy reasons", then please move this discussion to the correct place. I was addressing the very point you raised. Your charge was that I was (a) removing valid sources, and (b) using flimsy reasons, so in my response I have shown that the additions are not valid, and have demonstrated that I have very strong reasons.
You can also verify that I have repeatedly invited you to discuss the matter, and that I have discussed it on both my talk page and the page where you insisted we move the discussion. However, your side of the discussion never relates to the issue, and consist largely of posting links to other pages without explanation and without responding to points of the discussion. You have repeatedly changed the direction of the discussion without addressing the point that the information you are adding is incorrect. I am not the one failing to discuss the matter, and I have discussed it at all three places where you have initiated the discussion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
That's what you are doing. You are a Wikispecies admin and one of your key interests are moss (Q25347). You have „shown“ one thing with you reverts in Bryidae (Q133611): your POV and only this one could be true. And yes I'm an idiot not understandig the difference between a taxon name and a taxonomic treatment/opionion/concept. --Succu (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Your reverting arguments for Anthoceros laevis (Q17295302) are:

Ignoring [2] --Succu (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

This is childish. If you wish to present the full history, then please include your own changes, accusations, and reverts in the list as well--for both data items. And I point out that the link which you say I ignored (I didn't) has no information at all about the formatting of pages for basionym data items, as I already explained to you on my Talk page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
This does not look the right page to discuss this, at this stage. However, Succu is right: Wikidata is here to record relationships, and the source did state this relationship with Bryidae, so it should be kept, even if EncycloPetey does not agree with what was published. Perhaps, it might be worth discussing if Bryidae should be split, with different items for different circumscriptions. - Brya (talk) 05:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Cygnus, Cygnini

Shouldn't Q34384 and Q13508009 be merged?

84.41.34.154 21:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

No. The values for taxon rank (P105) aren't the same, so they aren't the same. Mbch331 (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
That's correct. I fixed the german labels and descriptions. --Succu (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Cygnus, Cygnini

Shouldn't Q34384 and Q13508009 be merged?

84.41.34.154 21:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

No. The values for taxon rank (P105) aren't the same, so they aren't the same. Mbch331 (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
That's correct. I fixed the german labels and descriptions. --Succu (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Q15088568

Please restore Q15088568, deleted by User:Arkanosis. The item is used in The Argasidae, Ixodidae and Nuttalliellidae (Acari: Ixodida) of the world: a list of valid species names (Q15072746) as an author. --Succu (talk) 10:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

done --Pasleim (talk) 10:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Pasleim :) — Arkanosis ✉ 10:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Problem with badges in the original language of the Achaemenid article

Dear sir/ madam, I wanted to add a badge to the Persian article of Achaemenid Empire (URL: https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/هخامنشیان) but this is canceled by Wikipedia (saying "Only an administrator or a trusted member can add a badge"). In the same topic, many other languages unrelated to the Persian history (i.e. French) are getting "featured" and "good" badges but the true language of the mentioned empire is lost in the list (i.e. has no badge beside it).

Please correct such issue (or let others add a badge when necessary). I'm looking forward to hearing from you.

Thanks a lot for your great website, Amirpouya Eb. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amirpouya88 (talk • contribs).

Which badge should be added? I can't find any status on fawiki. Mbch331 (talk) 10:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

GLGermann and sockpuppets

I'm getting a bit tired of the merge problems topics started by the sockpuppets of de:Benutzer:GLGermann like for example Mir42326rwe235 (talk • contribs • logs), 7476ghd (talk • contribs • logs) and Lurt43rggwer (talk • contribs • logs). What should we do with this? Multichill (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

"Capital" or "Capital of"???

For me there is no difference between "Capital" and "Capital of"??? Both refer to be to the capital of an admin entity.

Why not unify them?

Because France has the "Capital" Paris, while Paris is the "Capital of" France (and maybe also some other administrative entities). -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Partikularkirche/Teilkirche

Would someone more knowledgeable than me please see what to do about the classification of the German articles Partikularkirche and Teilkirche. The first really belongs with Q654710: articles on local particular churches, such as dioceses, and on the larger sui iuris (autonomous) churches, such as the Latin Church and the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. It does not belong, where it now is, with Q1492823: articles only on local particular churches. Q654710 at present includes Teilkirche, which is really only a disambiguation page, not an article. I would like to remove Teilkirche from Q654710 and replace it with Partikularkirche, but I am afraid someone might disagree.Theodoxa (talk) 10:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, on second thoughts, it would be best to make Teilkirche a redirect to Partikularkirche and then make the change I had in mind. But, having raised the question, I let it remain here.

One could add a further question. The Esperanto article, Proprajuraj katolikaj eklezioj, is only about the class of larger particular churches. Does it belong with Q654710? It is scarcely worthwhile setting up a separate class for it, to balance Q1492823, which is a class that contains (or should contain) only two articles. Theodoxa (talk) 10:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I moved de sitelink from local particular church (Q654710) to the new item Teilkirche (Q21995926), the de.page was the only disambiguation page in Q654710.

Samuel De Luque (YouTuber) (Q22002307)

It is spam. Please, delete it. --Osado (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done Pamputt (talk) 04:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: GZWDer (talk) 09:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Badges in Q5194814: Curl Curl, New South Wales

A user had added "problematic" and "not proofread" badges to the entry for the German article, because there were major issues. In the meantime the article has been revised, but I can't remove these badges. (info says, that an admin has to do this). Could s.o. pls remove them as now the article is marked as "problematic". Thanks, --AnnaS.aus I. (talk) 12:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done--Ymblanter (talk) 12:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: GZWDer (talk) 09:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Merge

I made a dupe by mistake Q22057278 (error) and Q21959506 (merge target). --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done. Read Help:Merge on how to solve this in the future. Mbch331 (talk) 15:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: GZWDer (talk) 09:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Please connect these two articles in german and english

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keratocystic_odontogenic_tumour

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keratozystischer_odontogener_Tumor

thank you...i was not able to do it

✓ Done Pamputt (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: GZWDer (talk) 09:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Request for edit article's badges when promoted as Featured Articles

This section was archived on a request by: Pamputt (talk) 12:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

As you could notice here I am one of the editors in charge with promotion/reevaluation of the candidate articles at the Featured Articled status, on Romanian wiki.

In this respect I request to grant me the right to edit the subsequent article's badges at Wikidata, when them are promoted as Good/Featured Articles.

Thanks in advance! --Macreanu Iulian (talk) 09:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Did you already try to add a badge? Multichill (talk) 10:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
He isn't a confirmed user yet (has only 27 edits, so needs 23 edits to become confirmed). AFAIRC you need to be confirmed to be able to edit badges. Mbch331 (talk) 11:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
@Macreanu Iulian: Hmmm, I do not know who has the rights to add badges but if Mbch331 is right, you should be able to add badges now (I gave you the status of "confirmed user"). Pamputt (talk) 11:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
If it still isn't possible, then it's admin only, because there's no separate badge user right. Mbch331 (talk) 11:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much! --Macreanu Iulian (talk) 11:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
@Macreanu Iulian: Could you try to add a badge to see if it works with the "confirmed user" right? Pamputt (talk) 11:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I have just done one here and it works. Thanks again! --Macreanu Iulian (talk) 12:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Adding a badge

Hey, the article Hobey Baker Memorial Award (Q1621607) was recently promoted to featured list status in dewiki, however, I was unable to add the badge to the Wikidata entry because of my lack of edits (I mostly edited without logging in here). Could anyone please add it? Thank you very much, --RhoHokki (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done. Mbch331 (talk) 14:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: GZWDer (talk) 08:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/85.54.27.252

Please stop it and restore the page once more.
--- Jura 20:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocked the IP for 1 day, if he continues after the block we can place a longer block as he seems to have vandalized already for few days. --Stryn (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, but that seems to have been too short.
--- Jura 07:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
@Stryn:
--- Jura 17:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Now for one month. --Stryn (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Acadia

Item Q207353 is about the French colony, but fr:Acadie is about the region whereas fr:Acadie (Nouvelle-France)/Q2822228 is about the colony. --84.41.34.154 21:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I did not understand where does the problem come from. Could you describe better what we can do? Thanks in advance. Pamputt (talk) 06:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
fr:Acadie (Nouvelle-France) should be added to Q207353 and fr:Acadie removed.--84.41.34.154 19:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Elenyyy

I would like some help reviewing the edits of Elenyyy. The last days I have found some edits where (s)he has added P31:Q5 to items where the title of the articles maybe looked like names of persons (but wasn't), so I thought it was unintentional mistakes. But the edits in Kik (mountain in Bosnia) I found today makes me doubt about the good intensions. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Add language ref Greek article

Hello. There is a respective entry on left-handedness and a subsection on discrimination against left-handed people in the Greek wikipedia, on the link below:

https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%91%CF%81%CE%B9%CF%83%CF%84%CE%B5%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%87%CE%B5%CE%B9%CF%81%CE%AF%CE%B1 (lemma "Αριστεροχειρία")

Might want to add as a language ref. Thanks. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 78.158.128.165 (talk • contribs) at 18 dec 2015 19:46‎ (UTC).

This section was archived on a request by: Mbch331 (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The Name of Sungbong Choi

Dear Administrator,

the name of Sungbong Choi should be only used as Sungbong Choi, not Choi Sungbong or Sung-bong Choi. It is absolutely ridiculous and not right to have many different versions of a single person, isn't it? You have only one name, and that is the way the name should be spelled out when it is in languages that use English alphabet. Therefore, as Sungbong Choi himself wants ( I am writing on behalf of Sungbong Choi), his name should appear as 'Sungbong Choi' in all pages. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.78.108.160 (talk • contribs).

I suggest you address the local wiki's first. Wikidata uses the title of a page as the label. We assume the local wiki's know which name the person is best known for. Mbch331 (talk) 08:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Deleted items

We have now several items which have been deleted but are still in use. I have already resolved some of them, these are the remaining ones:

Notifying Lymantria and Jared Preston who were involved in deleting them. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Taken care of my deletions. Lymantria (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Removal/John F. Lewis

I have started this de-sysop request. Users may comment on it.--GZWDer (talk) 06:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Though I voted against your proposal (after Jalexander-WMF explained a bit), it's good to know that the WMF globally locked one of our colleagues - more than two months ago, and as far as I can tell, without notifying us as a community in any form. --YMS (talk) 08:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for the lack of a notification, I could have posted something... Thanks to whomever started the desysop request too. Ajraddatz (talk) 09:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/189.170.18.28

Spam sur l'élément Q3626966. --Fanchb29 (talk) 01:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for a few days, thanks. Ajraddatz (talk) 01:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

General Dynamics Mission Systems

An IP is pushing promotional views on General Dynamics Mission Systems (Q5531848) ; I've reverted twice, we'll see if he/she comes back... Special:Contributions/137.100.97.30 Special:Contributions/2601:5cd:c100:2399:cd8f:787:3d7d:699a --Tinm (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

There he is again. I'm not sure what the policy is, should he be blocked ? —Tinm (d) 00:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
[3] —Tinm (d) 15:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I semi protected the item for a week --Pasleim (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Mr.Ibrahembot

This unapproved bot is adding many wrong coordinates. Please block the bot.--GZWDer (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done We could offer this RollBot as task for it (@Alphos:). Matěj Suchánek (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
GZWDer already rolled it all back, but RollBot shall and will work on it nonetheless ! Just launched it in its most aggressive mode ("nuke" in all namespaces), it detected 75 pages edited by Mr.Ibrahembot, and is currently not doing anything to any of them : work is already done :D It'll still produce a report when it's done, which will list the pages as successfully reverted. At a rate of 1 edit every 5 seconds, it'll be done in a little 5 minutes now. Alphos (talk) 20:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done Too ! See the report. Also spotted a bug I left after changing a bit of logic - now corrected -, which cut off the nickname of subsequent editors after the first "good editor" to their first byte (not UTF-8 char, there's PHP for you). Alphos (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
@Alphos: Please also revert its edit on 20 December 2015. example.--GZWDer (talk) 05:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
@GZWDer: While I really appreciate your trust in my bot, I sadly must currently decline on account that it would also revert the legitimate changes Mr.Ibrahembot made to arwiki sitelinks on December 28-29, 2015 : RollBot doesn't exactly "revert edits", it more accurately "restores good versions". I'll try and come up with a workaround today (perhaps a list of pages to "ignore" and show as requiring human check ? I'll ping you as soon as I've come up with something ). Alphos (talk) 09:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
@Alphos: Why not using the undo function? This will not revert new legitimate changes and will always be successful unless the claims have been changed (or deleted) by another user.--GZWDer (talk) 14:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
@GZWDer: I did think of it, but multiple "wrong" edits on the same page by the target would require as many write API calls instead of just one, which is frowned upon ; additionally, it's not always possible to undo a modification. In the good news, I think I have a correct implementation of your suggestion ! Just a few more checks and I'll try and run it over these old edits by Mr.Ibrahembot. Alphos (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
For a reason I can't yet explain, RollBot acted in "nuke" mode despite being set not to. I'm exploring this issue, and already reverted the three edits it made when it shouldn't have. I apologize about that. Alphos (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Now I can explain it. I coded while stupid. I can't say I fixed being stupid, but I can say I fixed the mistake I made despite being very clear in a comment I wrote a few lines above that mistake that I shouldn't make that mistake. Alphos (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Abraham Mateo (Q330316)

The item above seems to get vandalized by IPs on a regular basis. Could we get a semi-protection for a bit? --Srittau (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure, done for 6 months. Ajraddatz (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Removal of sources by User:EncycloPetey

User:EncycloPetey countinously removes vaild sources in Bryidae (Q133611) and Anthoceros laevis (Q17295302) with flimsy reasons. This leads to some contraint violations. Please tell him to stop his behaivior. --Succu (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I am removing incorrect information. Succu persists in adding misleading information to the wrong data items, and refuses to discuss the issue. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
To whit: His additions at Bryidae (Q133611) are based on a misinterpretation of the source, as I explained in the discussion at Wikidata talk:WikiProject Taxonomy. In short, his source ([4]) does include a taxon called "Bryidae" within a taxon called "Equisetopsida", but these are not the same taxa to which he ascribes the relationship. He has confused different taxa that bear the same name, much like adding biographical data to the wrong "John Smith". --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Please notice the discussion at WikiProject_Taxonomy. After the next revert Anthoceros laevis (Q17295302) is incomplete again. The removed source for Bryidae (Q133611) (A phylogenetic classification of the land plants to accompany APG III (Q13626292)) is used multiple times. The relationship to the paren is used by Tropicos in the same way. The real reason for his remove is that he thinks our way to model taxa is wrong. --Succu (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Tropicos applies the taxon names in the same way as the cited source, but Wikidata does not. The source cited explicitly states that they are defining the name "Equisetopsida" as the embryophytes Embryophyte (Q192154), and not as the horsetails Equisetopsida (Q134677) as Succu seems to think. Succu has misunderstood the source. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
That's you persional interpretation, restricted to one usage of this source. The same is true for the other removal. --Succu (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Personal interpretation has nothing to do with it. The source, at the top of page 123 says: "Table 1. A working classification of class Equisetopsida [embryophytes] (Fig. 1)" The source itself makes the connection explicitly. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
but Wikidata does not... Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (Q4657775). --Succu (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Look at the content of the two data items. Embryophyte (Q192154) is Embryophytes, and is where embryophyte information should be placed. But Equisetopsida (Q134677) "Equisetopsida" is the horsetails, as evidenced by all of the wikilinks on that data item. There is also Equisetopsida sensu lato (Q5384603) "Equisetopsida sensu lato" which is the Equisetopsida in the sense used in the cited article. Wikidata is clearly using "Equisetopsida" in several different senses, and the one in the source article does not match the one at Equisetopsida (Q134677) to which Succu has repeatedly and incorrectly added the information. Wikidata has a separate item for the embryophytes.
Further, "Bryidae", as used in the article, is the "mosses" moss (Q25347), and not merely the "peristomate mosses" Bryidae (Q133611). Look at the content of the Wikidata pages instead of just the names on the pages. Names apply variously to different taxa, just as they do to people. Consider this recent addition of a link to the "moss" data item. Yes, the linked item is "moss", but it is the municipality in Norway, not the division of plants. Just because two things have the same name does not make them the same. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
This is the wrong page to discuss taxonomic issues. It did not explain more than ten reverts of yours in Anthoceros laevis (Q17295302) in the last three days with untrue accusations like „don't revert without discussion“. The discussion started at your talk page and you refused to discuss the matter at the right place. --Succu (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Succu, if this is the wrong place to discuss your assertion that "User:EncycloPetey countinously removes vaild sources in Bryidae (Q133611) and Anthoceros laevis (Q17295302) with flimsy reasons", then please move this discussion to the correct place. I was addressing the very point you raised. Your charge was that I was (a) removing valid sources, and (b) using flimsy reasons, so in my response I have shown that the additions are not valid, and have demonstrated that I have very strong reasons.
You can also verify that I have repeatedly invited you to discuss the matter, and that I have discussed it on both my talk page and the page where you insisted we move the discussion. However, your side of the discussion never relates to the issue, and consist largely of posting links to other pages without explanation and without responding to points of the discussion. You have repeatedly changed the direction of the discussion without addressing the point that the information you are adding is incorrect. I am not the one failing to discuss the matter, and I have discussed it at all three places where you have initiated the discussion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
That's what you are doing. You are a Wikispecies admin and one of your key interests are moss (Q25347). You have „shown“ one thing with you reverts in Bryidae (Q133611): your POV and only this one could be true. And yes I'm an idiot not understandig the difference between a taxon name and a taxonomic treatment/opionion/concept. --Succu (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Your reverting arguments for Anthoceros laevis (Q17295302) are:

Ignoring [5] --Succu (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

This is childish. If you wish to present the full history, then please include your own changes, accusations, and reverts in the list as well--for both data items. And I point out that the link which you say I ignored (I didn't) has no information at all about the formatting of pages for basionym data items, as I already explained to you on my Talk page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
This does not look the right page to discuss this, at this stage. However, Succu is right: Wikidata is here to record relationships, and the source did state this relationship with Bryidae, so it should be kept, even if EncycloPetey does not agree with what was published. Perhaps, it might be worth discussing if Bryidae should be split, with different items for different circumscriptions. - Brya (talk) 05:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

So non of our Wikidata:Administrators has an opionion? Very dark. --Succu (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I think people hoped this would solve itself. Looks like this isn't the case @EncycloPetey: there is no truth, only sources. Next time engage in an edit war and remove a sourced statement ([6]) you will be blocked. @Succu: please don't edit war. Multichill (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
@Multichill: User:Succu has linked the wrong data items. Yes, the information is "sourced" (names a source), but citing a source is meaningless when the source doesn't actually support the information. Or, does Wikidata keep all edits that list a "source", even when the listing is an error?
This isn't about "truth" in relationships, it's about misrepresenting what the source says about those relationships. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
The source says that (in their taxonomy) subclass Bryidae is assigned to class Equisetopsida. The item said that (in the taxonomy of the source) subclass Bryidae is assigned to class Equisetopsida. Any 'interpretation' which denies that smacks of religious fundamentalism / censorship by a blindly authoritarian dictator / etc. - Brya (talk) 11:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Julius Tominius

Please be aware of the contributions of User:Julius Tominius. --Succu (talk) 23:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, could you be more precise? A quick overview of his contributions looks good. Pamputt (talk) 05:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
@Succu: please be more clear. I assume you suspect this to be a sockpuppet of en:user:Tobias Conradi aka user:Tamawashi? Is that correct? Multichill (talk) 08:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes. --Succu (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Regardless of the identity of the user, he is making more than 10 edits per minute without a flood flag, which is clearly not correct, and could be blocked for that reason alone. --Izno (talk) 13:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Although I doubt it, I have filed a request at en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tobias Conradi.--GZWDer (talk) 13:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I'll think this is the interesting part of his ia contributions. --Succu (talk) 23:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
It's a sock. User was blocked here and the account got a global ban based on this RFC. Multichill (talk) 08:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tobias Conradi --Succu (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Please hide my IP

Please hide my IP address from https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q1762742&oldid=294778300 and https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q470341&oldid=294779594 --Pitke (talk) 08:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Done and done. In the future, you can email oversight[at]wikidata.org or either of us individually, to keep the diffs out of the public eye. Ajraddatz (talk) 09:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I ran into the same issue and filed Phabricator:T124451. Multichill (talk) 10:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for filing. Would you like your IP hidden there as well? It won't impact the bug report and investigation. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
@Ajraddatz: I don't care that much about it. As an admin I can hide the edits and I rarely use it so I tried it in this case. Seems to work :-) Multichill (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Request for temporary block

✓ Done

Q19482164 is haunted by an IP that is removing content. I kindly request a temporal block of Q19482164. Thank you, --Gereon K. (talk) 00:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

If this is not the right place to ask an admin to look at Q19482164 please tell me where to ask for help. Thank you, --Gereon K. (talk) 08:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The article is protected for a month, only confirmed users can edit it. Csigabi (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


The edits were not vandalism. I've moved the label and link to Q8481878. Q19482164 now only contains the English Wikipedia's page, which I've nominated to be redirected. Peter James (talk) 20:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Redirecting is not a good idea since it is not the same group and 93 Minerva is not a member of Gefion group. (But deletion of the Minerva category is a good idea, indeed.)
And please ignore the User:Gereon K.. He is well known in the de.wikipedia for his destructive editing and telling lies about other people vandalizing. -- 2A02:1205:34E4:5820:F881:5547:4ABF:ABFA 20:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I dare to call you „Astrotroll“, but this won't help. He is well know for his pleasantries like „destructive editing and telling lies about other people vandalizing“. --Succu (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Please semi- Q117139

Thanks.
--- Jura 14:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done for 1 week. If this continues after that, a longer period is possible. Mbch331 (talk) 14:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Rutherford B. Hayes is GA in fi-wiki

Article about Rutherford B. Hayes is GA in fi-wiki, but I don't have enough edits in Wikidata to mark that.-Henswick (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Tehty :). --Stryn (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Update Q4597488

Hi
Please add to Q4597488 Estonian Wikipedia page link https://et.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portaal:S%C3%BCndmused.
Postituvi (talk) 13:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done - Mbch331 (talk) 13:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Postituvi (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

en-wikipedia Ridge Racer (video game)

Promoted to good article. Could the badge be added? Adam9007 (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Epìdosis 23:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Revdeletion of a PC item

This edit could probably stand rev deletion. The user should probably be blocked, at the least. --Izno (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

For a very start, you should not have made the post even more prominent than it is. Now it is a bit late for that. If you, or any other user, finds something that should be rev-deleted, then approaching an active admin in private (via e-mail, for example) would be best thing to do, seeing that this noticeboard is watched by non-admins too. Then, in addition, I don't think the user should necessarily be blocked on the basis of one edit, whether it is true or not. Jared Preston (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

This edit is probably by the same user.

No, actually, something that serious is not something our administrative efforts are qualified to take care of, and should be handled as such. A block and a talk page comment to redirect the user (if in fact the user is serious in any way) to local medical personnel is the best way to deal with it.

As regards the fact this was posted here, I see no admins have acted on it nearly 24 hours on. Either the current admins in plural disagree as to its nature (disturbing) or have not seen it. I'm not going to hunt for every administrator, nor even through the so-called "active ones" at a particular time. --Izno (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I was at a meeting last night and today mostly shopping with my family, so I've had no time to look at the administrators' noticeboard. As oversighter, I agree with the comments of Jared Preston. And maybe it's better to say why the edit needs to be revdeleted and why the user should be blocked. Another alternative for posting here or emailing is asking for help in our IRC channel (#wikidata, use !admin to get attention), by asking for revdeletion without posting the url first. An administrator will contact you in a private message then. And btw, I don't see a clear indication why these edits need to be revdeleted. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
To me it's just plain vandalism. The German Wikipedia has a page for reporting such instances, and I know there are some volunteers there who report such things to the appropriate authorities, but here I think the best advice is not to feed the trolls. Jared Preston (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
It's getting to the point of spam; we've had at least one a day for the past several days. I'd recommend the underlying IP be blocked to see if it continues, or disabling of creation of new names. --Izno (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't have experience with spambots, but I know that their IP addresses are very dynamic. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 15:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive/2016/01&oldid=304733115"