Shortcut: WD:AN

Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Administrators' noticeboard
This is a noticeboard for matters requiring administrator attention. IRC channel: #wikidata connect
On this page, old discussions are archived. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2018/12.






a query

for deletions

for comment


for permissions


for deletion

and imports



Requests for deletions


104 open requests for deletions.

Requests for unblock


2 open requests for unblock.

Wikidata:Properties for deletion#P407 and P364[edit]

Can we please close this huge huge and huge section? It's already staled for one year, and seems already have consensus to delete original language of work (P364). --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

The problem doesn't seem to be the decision to delete or not, but rather that there are still open questions about how to handle various use-cases without this property that haven't really been fully answered. And from my understanding, lots of items for editions/translations would have to be created to keep all the information intact, but there doesn't seem to be concrete plans or volunteers to actually do that for thousands of works. --Kam Solusar (talk) 22:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@Kam Solusar: Can you point to an example item which will break if we merge original language of work (P364) with language of work or name (P407)? Thanks. --2604:A880:CAD:D0:0:0:52E:4001 08:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, it's the impression I got from the discussions there. Maybe User:Jura1 or User:EncycloPetey can chime in on whether the poential problems brought up by them have been resolved. --Kam Solusar (talk) 23:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC) Edit: User:Fnielsen also brougt up some potential issues with books/editions. --Kam Solusar (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • P364 seems to have emerged as the property to use on films and related items. In the meantime, some subsequent discussion took place on Property_talk:P407#Label about its label and apparently not much came from it either. This despite that Property:P2439 was deleted under the assumption that the label would change (If I recall that correctly). Maybe there is a gap between contributors using the properties and participants in PfD discussions. --- Jura 12:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
And what it is your argument that language of work or name (P407) should not be merged with original language of work (P364)? seems to have emerged is bushwa, not a reason. --2604:A880:CAD:D0:0:0:52E:4001 07:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

As the originator of the discussion on WD:PFD, I'd like to give my personal view on this issue. The original discussion was closed by User:Matěj Suchánek in May 2017 with the conclusion that there is consensus to merge the two properties [1]. The subsequent and now still open discussion is dealing with the question how to merge the properties. For songs, books and theater production that discussion was fruitful, today original language of work (P364) is not used anymore in these domains (with a few exceptions, see #2 and #6 below). Contrary, movies and TV series still largely depend on P364, although for TV series the situation is more complicated (9.8K statements use P407 [2], 19.1K statements use P364 [3]). But most importantly, there are no items which use both P364 and P407. So why are both properties required? In the discussion on WD:PFD no telling argument was made why movies can not migrate to P407, WD:WikiProject Movies does not list any case where an item would need two language properties because original work and dubbings are separated, and the above comments in this section also don't mention any problem which would occur from merging. To be honest, the only reason why we still have P364 is the stubbornness of very few users. I can understand that people try to defend their opinions, unfortunately the current situation comes with some drawbacks:

  1. it is against community consensus [4]
  2. it causes conflicts in certain domains, e.g. a speech can be filmed or written down, a musical film is a performing arts production and a film
  3. data usage and querying is complicated
  4. code reusability is not possible
  5. on Wikipedia, templates have to be adapted to expect both P364 and P407
  6. it causes additional maintenance work. User are regularly erroneously adding P364 to books or P407 to movies. Even experienced users make these mistakes [5] [6] [7].

The question which remains to be answered by an administrator is whether the stubbornness of very few users or these drawbacks should be weighted higher. --Pasleim (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Anyone? --Pasleim (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
This is not an area I have any particular interest in, but from reading the above (and previously reading at least at some point the looong discussion on PfD) it seems to me if no example can be provided where both P364 and P407 would both be needed on a given item with differing values, they should be merged. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I think one (fringe?) case that came up in that discussion is a case where you know the language of an edition and of the original work, but there's a gap somewhere in the chain of linked editions/translations between those two. E.g. you have an edition that isn't directly based on the original work but rather on some edition or translation, yet you don't know which edition. In that case, the original language can't be queried by going up the chain of edition or translation of (P629) statements all the way to the work item. But maybe that's already solved by the books Wikiproject? --Kam Solusar (talk) 21:03, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Can you provide an example? I could not find it in the deletion discussion. In case an edition can not be linked with the original work, I'm wondering how original publication date or original publication place is retrieved. 21:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Opinions needed[edit]

I have problems with West Kowloon Station Mainland Port Area (Q48928408). I was the one who protected the page during its edit war (see the page history) and asked the participants to reach consensus. Two days ago, an anon reverted my edit and started again deleting/changing the problematic statements. Maybe I am the blind one, but I do not see clear consensus about it. I am not sure about that what I or we should do, so please check the item and help me deciding what would be the best move. Thanks! Bencemac (talk) 14:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Just block these new IPs (and better, just range block them /24):,,,, -- 00:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Anyway this page should permanently be semi-protected. -- 00:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I started watching the item this afternoon, and saw continuation of the edit war just now. Thus I protected the version I currently found for another week, without expressing preference for it. Editors still need to find consensus, otherwise we do indeed need to issue user blocks or range blocks.
Thus: involved editors, please elaborate a consensus at a suitable page (preferentially Talk:Q48928408; mind this and that discussion). I’m watching the item talk page as well. —MisterSynergy (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy: I will consider the result of Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic#administrated by the administrative territorial entity as the final consensus. 03:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@MisterSynergy: I am unsure about the current label deletion and because of it, I do not want to act. Bencemac (talk) 14:49, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, this IP user still do removal of aliases, *without any fair reasons provided*, that said, an alias isn't the article naming, with the exception that affects BLP, an alias can be itself useful for any external users to find an item much more easier, the removal IMO should only be happened because 1. affecting BLP, or 2. the redirect points to a local "was-redirect" page, where it's altered to an article (and so by technical you have to remove it). --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 15:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy: And, instead of full protection in some periods, can we please semi-protect this item infinitely? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Does Liuxinyu970226 trying to control Q48928408 and not allow IP users to edit it? There is no such alias "Shenzhen West Kowloon". No evidence on Google search. Please do not swear black is white. 13:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Seems like there is still no consensus about the matter, thus the item is now fully protected again for a week in the state that I found. If edit warring continues, user blocks for involved editors may be an option next time. Did any new discussion take place meanwhile? —MisterSynergy (talk) 13:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

On the other hand, the High Court of Hong Kong has made a judgement today (13 Dec 2018). According to paragraph 64 of the Judgement, Judge Anderson Chow said:

It is not in dispute that the Mainland Port Area falls with the territory of Hong Kong under the “Order of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China No 221” dated 1 July 1997, which was promulgated in accordance with the “Decision of the National People’s Congress on the Establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region” adopted at the Third Session of the Seventh National People’s Congress on 4 April 1990. 14:11, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Wrong edits from User:John Cummings[edit]

John Cummings have imported in Wikidata the Hungarian sites on with wrong properties. His import have used property Bien de Interés Cultural (BIC) code (P808), but the correct property should be: WDPA ID (P809). For example see Gerecse Protected Landscape Area (Q1009672) There You could verify both the links.

I wrote to John Cummings one weeks ago, but he doesn't pay any attention on my remarks. This consent about 1000 items! Texaner (talk) 12:51, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Do we have a list of affected items? —MisterSynergy (talk) 13:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks very much for spotting this @Texaner:, I'm fairly confident this was caused when I was using Mix n' Match but then hardly any of it has been matched This should give us a list of affected items though. I'm not sure how to fix it, how do I delete a Mix n' Match catalogue? . --John Cummings (talk) 13:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
This is correct, it is a unlucky typo in Mix n' Match, unfortunately I have also no idea how correct them. Texaner (talk) 15:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
@Magnus Manske: are you able to fix this typo in the backend of Mix n' Match pretty please? We need Bien de Interés Cultural (BIC) code (P808) to be corrected to WDPA ID (P809) in , if not please can you delete it and I'll redo it. --John Cummings (talk) 12:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Question @Texaner: and @MisterSynergy:, if I do all the remaining matching is it possible for someone here to use a tool to do the corrections using my edit history to see the items? --John Cummings (talk) 10:15, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
From what I understand, there are way less than 1000 items affected. Your faulty M'n'm catalog has 875 entries, of which only 129 have been matched (mostly by User:Texaner). The P808 covi report also does not list many format violations. I can move wrongly imported values from P808 to P809, but I need a list of item/value pairs to work on. Something like Q1009672 -> 9565 from this diff, but for all affected items. If you could provide such a list, I’d be able to do the repair.
M'n'm has a catalog editor where one could update the target property, but unfortunately it does not work. Maybe someone can file a bug report in Magnus' repo. —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:11, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi @MisterSynergy:, thanks very much, I was able to make the change (perhaps its a rights issue and because I made the catalogue I have the power?). Unfortunately this has unmatched everything that was matched, I will put a bit of time in to do some matching but I don't want to do the hard ones because I can't read Hungarian. --John Cummings (talk) 11:37, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
It didn’t update, you’re again importing to the wrong property. There is a bug report meanwhile. —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks @MisterSynergy:, what a pickle... --John Cummings (talk) 11:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
I deleted those six new items you just created. —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@John Cummings, Texaner: I have moved all wrong imports to the correct property, i.e. there are no Bien de Interés Cultural (BIC) code (P808) claims left to repair. The only thing still to fix is the M'n'm catalog, but my admin tools do not help there at all :-) —MisterSynergy (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, Magnus has just updated the catalog after I went to his user talk page. I think we can close this now. —MisterSynergy (talk) 14:35, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank yours effort! It seems to be OK. Texaner (talk) 15:30, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks both, sorry for the mistake and glad we got it sorted (and found an exciting bug as well). --John Cummings (talk) 15:35, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


Good afternoon!please information in property my data in wikidata,return code correct vandalism – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vulcano24 (talk • contribs).

@Vulcano24: You may want to ask whatever it is on Wikidata:Project chat. Esteban16 (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


User: —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism-only account User:JoshBreal[edit]

JoshBreal (talkcontribslogs)

Apparent vandalism-only account active for almost a whole year. Block requested. Thanks, ARR8 (talk) 05:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done by Mahir256--Ymblanter (talk) 21:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


Q662 is just joined in the FA list on (talk) 14:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done--Ymblanter (talk) 21:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[edit]

IP has been doing persistent vandalism. --Esteban16 (talk) 16:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done--Ymblanter (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


Please protect Q3187635 (Juan Darthés) due ongoing vandalism. Thanks. Montgomery (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done by Mahir256. Esteban16 (talk) 00:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism-only account Dateroomy[edit]

Dateroomy (talkcontribslogs)

Seems to be a repeat offender. Block requested, thanks, ARR8 (talk) 03:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done indef'd the account. I wonder if that history should be oversighted. Mahir256 (talk) 03:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
It would certainly make it harder for the vandal to restore. There are stewards on the scene, though. ARR8 (talk) 04:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
I've revision deleted the content, I don't think it needs OS. --Rschen7754 04:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Please block User:[edit]

Thanks. --Pyfisch (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

And delete Q59660547 --Pyfisch (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Problematic editing Special:Contributions/[edit]

Looks as though someone speaking French may need to gently take this person in hand, and give some guidance.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I blocked them, they clearly know what they are doing--Ymblanter (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Please semi-protect and indef block user[edit]

It seems to go on, without any explanation --- Jura 12:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done (blocked 만드는사람 (talkcontribslogs) indefinitely). Maybe -revi (talkcontribslogs) can have a look as well, as they dealt with this user last time. —MisterSynergy (talk) 15:10, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Would you semi-protect the item as well? I guess it isn't worth speculating what the logic may be. --- Jura 19:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Mahir256 did so. Not sure whether we need it, but it’s okay for me :-) —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Block an user for excessive vandalism[edit]

User:Kurrop started a continous changes and a reversion war on items related with President of the Generalitat of Catalonia (Q16933549) and its presidents, as Pau Claris (Q2532926). He/she doesn't attend the reference on item and provide their own version of the history. Despite my warnings to discuss before reverting and my arguments to the discussion, their reversals have continued. The few number of editions of this user make clear his intentions. Could you please block him/her ?. Thanks, Amadalvarez (talk) 14:47, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

After editing the article I started a discussion on the matter giving references on books and articles that support my edition. User User:Amadalvarez has omitted those references and started an edit war. Please take that into consideration and block the article until an agreement is reached. --Kurrop (talk) 14:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, please. Block the item as is was before User:Kurrop started reversions. Then we can talk (as we are doing yet) about his proposals.Thanks Amadalvarez (talk) 15:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
I think the right option is to block the article after my edition as I have given references that didn't exist in the article before my edition. --Kurrop (talk) 15:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
While we are discussing, User:Kurrop follows vandalizing items. Until now: President of the Generalitat of Catalonia (Q16933549), Pau Claris (Q2532926), Berenguer de Cruïlles (Q1924075), Eugenio Jofra Bofarull (Q263011), Garcia Gil de Manrique y Maldonado (Q8963474). Vandalize items and force to discussion is not a best practice, is just a troll profile. Thanks to paid attention and act. Amadalvarez (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
It seems User:Kurrop is trying to break consensus about Catalan history deleting number of historical Presidents of Generalitat, which is published both by law and historical sources, we've asked him/she to stop, please take in consideration some kind of control on the topic. Kippelboy (talk) 04:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

The item President of the Generalitat of Catalonia (Q16933549) is now fully protected for a week due to edit warring, as there was continuous activity regarding the presence of a reference while the issue was discussed on the item talk page. If there is a consensus regarding that reference, please let me know to remove the protection then. —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@MisterSynergy: Thanks, I'll try to get consensus. But is difficult to do it with a troll. His only goal (look his editions) is make noise and create fake version of the catalan history . Amadalvarez (talk) 11:16, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
@Amadalvarez: Do you try to get a consensus insulting me? What a funny way... As I have already said and I am still waiting for an answer in the discussion page, you are not giving any reference to support your nationalist way of thinking. The historiography speaks clearly about this issue what you are defending is just rewriting the history itself.--Kurrop (talk) 12:13, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


Please drain Flower plaque (Q15885230) of all descriptions. It was incorrectly tagged as a "disambiguation page" but none of its sitelinks have ever been disambiguation pages. Data drainer has recently been changed to rollbacker only so I can't do it myself anymore. Deryck Chan (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

✓ DoneMisterSynergy (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


Please moderate disruptive and disorganising activities of Andreasmperu. Thanks.DDupard (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I’ve tried to explain him both on my talk page and on edit summaries that he’s adding wrong statements for some properties (for instance, adding theatrical scenery (Q352867) as a statement for genre (P136) when that item is not about a genre), or adding wrong properties for certain items (a property for items about people on an item about an organisation), but he won’t listen. Probably a small block will be needed since he doesn’t seem able to stop. --Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 23:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
@Andreasmperu: If you think the item DDupard is using is the wrong item, why not answer the question they asked you on your talk page and help them find the right item? Repeated reverts are rarely a good way to solve anything. Once the right item to use has been found, it's easy to query for the items which need updating and fix them. - Nikki (talk) 10:34, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
@Nikki: Here I stated what was the problem with his edit, and once again even more precisely. In both cases, the user just reverted to the error. I stopped undoing his edits when I realised he wouldn’t understand reasons. Same story with Séeberger brothers (Q3089468). I encourage you to remove the mistakes that were put back, because the user doesn’t seem willing to stop edit warring. Problem is even bigger: a quick check on his edits shows other mistakes, such as adding an occupation to items about businesses or having confused ideas about how to use other properties. Again, I have mentioned explicitly what the problem is even though I don’t normally reply to aggressive messages. Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 17:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Request semiprotection for Q17008943[edit]

Request semiprotection for Q17008943 (LocalBitcoins) due to ongoing addition of affiliate links by and Superbtc777.

✓ Done Mahir256 (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Q1347892[edit]

Please semi-protect Equitable Building (Q1347892) - wave of frequent IP vandalism from various IPs.--Jklamo (talk) 00:21, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done 1m —MisterSynergy (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata:How to use data on Wikimedia projects[edit]

Hello there,

I noticed that the page Wikidata:How to use data on Wikimedia projects is more frequently vandalized than other documentation pages that I follow (why? I'm still wondering ;)) and I think it would be useful to have it semi-protected. Do you think it makes sense?

Thanks, Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 11:35, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done for a year--Ymblanter (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Pages names Baeyens: merge?[edit]

Shouldn't these two different disambiguity pages about the last name Baeyens be merged: Q33104244 and Q16479700? Jurre (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jurre: Nope. See family name has to use a different item than disambiguation pages (Q27924673). ARR8 (talk) 05:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Nevermind... both are about the last name, as you said. ARR8 (talk) 05:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


MovieFex (talkcontribslogs) keeps reverting an affiliate link into Lumber Kings (Q59456334). He has been warned not to do so on de-wiki. XenonX3 (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

  • @XenonX3: please don't bring your differences from dewiki to Wikidata. Furthermore, please refrain from deleting valid content from Wikidata. --- Jura 17:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
So affiliate links are valid content now? XenonX3 (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • What do you mean with "affiliate links"? --- Jura 17:40, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
This site contains a trailer and a lot of information about the film and the actors. And I was not warned in dewiki for this, it's a lie. Further on the link to this site is from Filmportal (External links).-- MovieFex (talk) 17:41, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
The website is an online shop that sells firewood. The subpage that MovieFex linked contains a description of a movie about lumberjacks. On that page you can either buy the movie DVDs or firewood via Amazon (so that the owner of earns a little bit of money from every transaction). The actual movie information is inferior to the other pages linked on Q59456334 and in the de-wiki article. The page on brennholzkaufen was obviously made to lure people that are interested in the movie into clicking the affiliate links and to buy the firewood or DVDs. XenonX3 (talk) 17:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
The question is if it describes the movie or not. If it's just a copy of content from elsewhere, it is not of much use. We link to Amazon's IMDb, so we don't really have a problem with affiliates. As you know, Amazon sells everything. We wouldn't link to Imdb with someone's affiliate code in it... --- Jura 17:57, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
@Jura1: The movie info is a copyvio from the official movie website that was shut down a few years ago. The owner of the online shop has bought the official website's URL and put up a redirect to his shop on there. XenonX3 (talk) 18:04, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
And what is the problem now? The site and the informations are available again. --MovieFex (talk) 18:14, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
E.g. Lexicon of international films (Q1822317) + Online-Filmdatenbank (Q1669874) are reputable filmwebsites, and they sell DVD's or have got links to amazon etc. --MovieFex (talk) 18:01, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Replaced the link to official website (archive). -- MovieFex (talk) 18:26, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

The link MovieFex had added is not a reputable website. The trailer is available without the affiliate links at other websites or at Youtube. It is true that there are reputable websites that do have affiliate links as well, but that doesn't mean that any website is reputable that was set up with a hijacked URL and stolen content in order to lure people into a shop. MovieFex knew all of this because he was told at de.wp, yet he waged an edit war here against multiple users, see history. Thereby he has wasted precious time of several people -- before he finally removed the link himself that others had removed before and he had restored multiple times. I'm not familiar with the policies of Wikidata, but in other projects this behaviour leads to a block. MovieFex doesn't accept help and reacts in a spiteful way to corrections. This has made collaboration with him very cumbersome in the past. --Sitacuisses (talk) 23:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Xenon seems to misunderstand what a affiliate link is. One can't remove content just because one has a dispute with a user on another Wikimedia website. Please stop importing your disputes to this wiki. Are you aware that U-tube inserts ads into videos they show? --- Jura 05:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Jura1, the link didn't get deleted because of a dispute on another Wikimedia website, but because it's a hijacked domain and not a reputable site. At en.wp, the guideline for hijacked domains is very clear: "it needs to be handled as a dead link". Please point me to the guidelines for external links at Wikidata. All I found is that links should lead to reputable sites. Maybe some further explanation is required. Please tell me if you don't agree with any of the following points:
  • The official site of the movie used to be This is still listed at Right click the link "Offizielle Website" (bottom right), copy the link adress and paste it into some text editor or your browser.
  • That URL has been hijacked and is now a redirect to
  • Since films usually get marketed only for a limited period, their official domains tend to expire afterwards.
  • Expired domains tend to be hijacked in order to benefit from the incoming links that persist. Here's an article from 2002 that describes how domains get hijacked by e.g. porn or gambling sites. This should be considered common knowledge among experienced internet users by now.
  • Domain hijacking is a scamming scheme.
  • In our case, the Domain was hijacked by a traffic aggregator who assembled some content still related to the orignal link in order to gain traffic for his affiliate shopping links. ("") is not dedicated to movies, but to selling firewood.
  • That content is no original content, it's not official either. The text mainly consists of the actors' and director's short biographies that don't say anything about the movie itself.
  • The content is available from reputable film sites like and and the official press sheet, which is still online. There is no need to resort to linking a hijacked domain.
  • Wikimedia projects should avoid supporting scamming schemes in order not to risk their own reputation.
  • Several experienced internet users removed the link and MovieFex waged an edit war to restore it. --Sitacuisses (talk) 10:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
So you disagree with the explanation given by Xenon above as well? The URL you are describing is different from the one MovieFex added, but I updated the URL on the film item per your explanation. --- Jura 07:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Two accounts for self-promotion[edit]

‎Disenador-wordpress (talkcontribslogs)

Bellresources (talkcontribslogs)

First user keeps editing web design (Q190637), adding links to own sites. The second is creating items for own products, was already banned on enwiki for this. Appropriate measures requested. Thanks, ARR8 (talk) 05:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Taken care of, by Mahir256 and myself.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


Hello, User: has been vandalizing pages, seems to be related to this problem again. Thanks, Redalert2fan (talk) 12:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Looks like it was a dynamical IP.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Cambiar nombre y darle protección contra traslados[edit]

Hola, quisiera que algun administrador le cambie el nombre al articulo siguiente Q7132566 por (Papelón con limón), y que le asignen la protección contra traslados. Gracias. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lobit2 (talk • contribs).

@Lobit2: Q7132566 es el ID del elemento, y Papelón con limón es su etiqueta, es decir, su nombre, y ya se llama así. Sobre lo del traslado, aquí no se realizan traslados en elementos, sino que se unen con otros si es necesario. Esteban16 (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done, the user wished the item to be "moved" to "Papelón con limón" and asked for a move protection and I told him how it works here. Esteban16 (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Protection of Catholicism (Q1841)[edit]

Please can you protect the mentioned page against IP vandalism by undefinitive protection ? Thank you Snipre (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Let's start with a year first. Mahir256 (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)