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: #wikidataconnect
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 2024/03.

Requests for deletions


~145 open requests for deletions.

Requests for unblock


1 open request for unblock.

They are disjoint two division of Wa State (Q2306303). How does WA control the Southern WA region? Southern Wa State and Northern Wa State are notable in Wikidata.

  • 2.It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity that can be described using serious and publicly available references.
  • 3. It fulfills a structural need, for example: it is needed to make statements made in other items more useful.

Wavana (talk) 02:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

deleted by user:Ameisenigel--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See also the discussion at User talk:Ameisenigel.
@Wavana: Do you have any references for these two areas?
How does the northern part of Wa State differ from Wa Self-Administered Division (Q3712127)?
I see the northern and southern parts have separate subsections in the ENWP article on Wa State, so it would be possible to create redirects for them that could be used as sitelinks, but it's unclear to me that these areas have well-accepted names (aside from that used for Q3712127, which already has an ENWP article). Bovlb (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mong Pawk (Q6899428) is a part of northen wa, but not Wa Self-Administered Division (Q3712127). Wa State and Kokang are connected, but Wa Self-Administered Division (Q3712127) and Kokang are not. Wavana (talk) 02:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
it's unclear to me that these areas have well-accepted English names, but these areas have well-accepted Chinese names. 北佤地区 and 南佤地区. Wavana (talk) 02:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ameisenigel, Estopedist1: Please restore them. Wavana (talk) 02:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My advice would be to establish redirect links from these names to sections within zh:佤邦. Bovlb (talk) 02:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can repeat what I have written on my talk page: The important point is using serious and publicly available references. There have been no such references when I deleted the items. Would you be willing to add references if I undelete the items? --Ameisenigel (talk) 08:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i guarantee itWavana (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Raniapahn not responding to talk page messages, continuing to create items that are not useful[edit]

I tried to explain to User:Raniapahn on their talk page that it's not useful to create items on people that only have one other statement pointing to an external database. They're not responding and continuing to do so. I now also see that the way they're using Mix'n'Match is also leaving Norsk descriptions in the English description field. I think a short block might be in order in order to signal that what they are doing is not constructive and to get them to respond to messages. 1Veertje (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

shock block for one week. Not answering questions at his talk page Estopedist1 (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User has now started talking — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Report concerning User:Ystthhibi[edit]

Ystthhibi (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))Reasons: Hello, This user has been banned and his edits have been rolled back, but most of them contain offensive, indecent and pornographic language that should be completely hidden along with the edit summary as well. Thanks. ―BANDAR (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

he was active in 2021. All edits seems to be in Arabic. It is not easy to find these old comments (maybe some of them are offensive) in item's history menu, so I think that damage is minimal here Estopedist1 (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See here [1] All Arabic texts with emojis (in edits and edit summaries too) are porn comments and he posted his account on Snapchat, if you could hide them it would be That be good. BANDAR (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is it just the ones with emojis in the edit summary? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have hidden the mentions of the Snapchat ID in the summaries, as it was an obvious violation. The other summaries do not look clearly offensive. --Wolverène (talk) 07:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stalking by User:GraceMaryGrace[edit]

GraceMaryGrace (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))Reasons: stalking on my talk page ↓

User talk:Clusternote#Enable your email, I want to share some valuable info with you on Piano Players on commons!

He/she seems not be able to discuss on proper place about his themes (w:player piano and commons:Category:vorsetzer), and may be a blocked user on several Wikimedia project(s). --Clusternote (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please block this user indefinetely, they are sending unwanted, nonsensical e-mails. What's more, the very same e-mail has been later forwarded to me from an e-mail account know for abusive messages towards wikimedians. Powerek38 (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User is now globally locked. –FlyingAce✈hello 17:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Estopedist1 (talk) 07:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why are we so strict with confirmed status?[edit]

Given the number of semi-protected items I always wondered why we interrogate people on Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Other rights who want confirmed status?. Are there historical examples of problems with us giving it out more freely? We seem to often say "just make 5 more edits" or whatever which doesn't seem super friendly. I avoid resolving requests there because I'm not sure what the standards required are. BrokenSegue (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I generally hand it out if someone has a solid reputation on their home project (e.g. 1k edits, 6 months, clean block log, not many complaints on their talk page). The purpose of semi-protection and certain abuse filters is to protect us from people creating sock farms. We expect people from other projects to come here and try to do stuff that supports the other project, and we don't need to gatekeep that. Bovlb (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree; I even granted one without a formal request, after the user casually mentioned having issues adding links to redirects. The thing with a couple of the recent ones I've seen is that they don't have much of a history in their home projects either, so it's harder to judge that way. –FlyingAce✈hello 18:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it is any consolation to anyone, I was recently considered unworthy of the privilege it is to be "confirmed" on metawiki. That's perfectly fine of course, I guess they don't need any help with global vandalism. Infrastruktur (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Family of watchmakers[edit]

These appear to have been deleted without going through the standard review process. They appear have a structural need as part of a family of watchmakers. If I remember they had several references. Can they be restored? RAN (talk) 21:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC) See also the deleted structural entries at Q74752978. --RAN (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Q124567315, Q124623517, Q124568747, and Q123200102 CC @Vargenau Bovlb (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) I appreciate why you did what you did here, but please be aware that it's bad form to edit the comments of other users. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 07:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Providing a list of Q-numbers is not "commenting". A comment is "a verbal or written remark expressing an opinion or reaction." You simply took the Q-number and made them into links, there was no "opinion or reaction" that was altered, just an adding to the list. --RAN (talk) 13:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regardless, you have been advised.
Also, when making undelete requests, you should be doing what I did in my comment, linking the items and CCing the deleting admin. You'll get better help if you make it easier for others to help you. Bovlb (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We can keep arguing about proper formatting of Q-numbers and whether adding to a list of Q-numbers is right or wrong, and whether a list is a comment; but instead, why don't we concentrate on the issue of deletion/restoration and Wikidata notability versus Wikipedia notabity? --RAN (talk) 12:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The only one with any references was the last one for Marie-Françoise Jeanneau. Not sure I'm seeing the "structural need" here — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here is the book of Marie Françoise Jeanneau :
Can you restore the page ? Kevlo007007 (talk) 18:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed, Richard did a fantastic work. I cannot understand why they deleted the links with this family of watchmakers. Kevlo007007 (talk) 12:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion of these elements has been requested at

Justification is available there.

Vargenau (talk) 12:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These should have been listed at before being deleted so that the Wikidata community can check whether they pass Wikidata's notability criteria, especially points 2 and 3: "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity that can be described using serious and publicly available references." and "It fulfills a structural need, for example: it is needed to make statements made in other items more useful."
Deleting family details from Augustin Jeanneau (Q74752978) makes that item less useful Piecesofuk (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why exactly is it useful to know who his sibling is? Is it equally useful to know who his niece, his best friend or his tennis partner is when there is no connection to his activity that makes him notable in the Wikidata sense (assumed there has been no interest in the public so far concerning such relations, which is undoubtedly the case for some celebrities)? --Dorades (talk) 21:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed, thank you for sharing your thoughts. Kevlo007007 (talk) 12:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think the justification provided is fair enough. Besides, they probably took this initiative unreasonably to destroy the process. This is a way that is not guided by or based on good sense.
This is not acceptable. Kevlo007007 (talk) 12:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would like to express my concern about @Vargenau
Do we have a case of vandalism ?
Please, investigate. Kevlo007007 (talk) 18:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I would like to appeal all those contents which have been deleted :

I don't understand why they have been deleted. They are very useful for genealogy purposes and family history records.

They are all linked with FamilySearch data and sources. Kevlo007007 (talk) 09:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kevlo007007, Vargenau: Ok. Please take it up with the deleting admin first before doing an appeal process. For the latest ones that would be Vargenau. Infrastruktur (talk) 10:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Deletion of these elements has been requested at
Justification is available there. Vargenau (talk) 12:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Justification provided is not relevant at all. So, I do appeal. Thanks in advance for taking care of the appeal process. Kevlo007007 (talk) 12:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Contributor Kevlo permanently blocked on WP:fr see here for family spam (conflict of interest). WP:fr was cleaned by several "patrollers", after this contributor disseminated extensive mentions of his family "Lognoné", without sources or encyclopedic relevance, in multiple articles. This same spamming occurred on Wikidata, Commons at large, and to a lesser extent on WP:en. There are still items on Wikidata that match this large family spam ; example : or --Arroser (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am very surprised by the agressive approach of @Vargenau
Indeed, I have been recommended by @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) to complete this family tree and add more elements.
As already mentionned, these appear to have been deleted without going through the standard review process. They appear have a structural need as part of a family of watchmakers. They had several references.
Can they be restored? Kevlo007007 (talk) 12:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am really shocked by those spamming allegation. There is no spamming at all.
Likewise, I noted that the blocking on Wikipedia was completely irregular, not in accordance with procedures and worse invoked for unjustified reasons.
This "patrol team" as it calls itself is not reliable.
Please extra care about those fake allegations. Kevlo007007 (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you so much @Infrastruktur. Still waiting his answer. Can they be restored ? Kevlo007007 (talk) 12:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's not for me to decide. The appeal is basically an open hearing, more information can be found at Wikidata:Guide to requests for undeletion#Final_appeal. I saw the items already had a number of sources and those will be considered. Infrastruktur (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good to know. Thank you so much for your reply. Kevlo007007 (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok so Patrol Team and the two administrators who carried out the blocking on WP:fr are not reliable. The administrator who deleted the items here is not reliable. The administrator who deleted the items on Commons is not reliable. The multiple contributors who cleaned up spam on WP:fr are not reliable. That's a lot of contributors, who have noticed spam and who believed in false allegations, not reliable... --Arroser (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you the same user as User:Kevlo92400? Why are you using multiple accounts? Bovlb (talk) 22:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't have multiple accounts. I am only using one. Kevlo007007 (talk) 10:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

... only one on Wikidata. --Arroser (talk) 10:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a little hard to go over, with everything being in french or paywalled. At least some of the items I would say are not notable, especially the ones with mostly geneaology sources and no other indication for why they are notable. I'm unsure when it comes to Kevin Lognone Q124567320, there are some sources that uses the word researcher but this doesn't seem to be at the Ph.d. level? . He does write quite a bit, again I'm unsure what the bar is for being considered notable as an author, whatever it is it is lower on Wikidata than it is on Wikipedia. If he has any books that's not self-published I would be fine with an item for the author and the book. Infrastruktur (talk) 16:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Kevlo007007 (talk) 16:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The ones I could find on Google Books appear to be self-published though. Do you have any books published by a publisher? Post the title and links for them. Infrastruktur (talk) 17:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here a book where I am mentionned as a contributor of "THE CULT OF MITHRA FROM MONT-DOL TO MONT-SAINT-MICHEL Historical and archaeological investigation" :
References : ISBN-10 2140324927 / ISBN-13 978-2140324925
Here is a scan of the last page where my name is truly mentionned : "Thank you for instigating this book" (Merci d'avoir suscité cette enquête) :
Here is also a reference of the The French Academy of Sciences : where my book was selected for a national foresight competition : Kevlo007007 (talk) 17:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See also Q117845762 Bovlb (talk) 16:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Kevlo007007 (talk) 16:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Arroser: Kevlo92400 has actually 9 deleted contributions on Wikidata, so I think one could justify to report them on Wikidata:Requests for checkuser if their contributions relate to the same topic or person(s). Since I can't see these deleted contributions, I refrain from doing so. --Dorades (talk) 19:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dorades. I have no doubt that KevloX2 are the same accounts since the two pseudonyms only contribute to the subject "Family Lognoné". On Commons, Kevlo007007 responds on the Kevlo92400 page. Moreover, to the question of Bovlb above, i think he doesn't answer precisely. Never mind. I'm just reporting a large family spam for non-encyclopedic topics, on Commons, WP:fr and Wikidata. The deletion of Wikidata elements is only a continuation of the major cleaning carried out on WP:fr and also partly on Commons, as well as the blocking of the contributor on WP:fr by two administrators. Despite everything, there are still elements here, without encyclopedic notoriety (and Commons also, that's another subject). But it's up to Wikidata administrators to make a decision and possibly clean up, not me : personally, I mainly clean up WP:fr ; WP:fr is quite well organized to react at advertising or self-promotion when it is discovered, with two differents "Team Patrol" who contribute and communicate together. --Arroser (talk) 20:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, there is no advertising or self promotion. Again, the family spam allegation is not relevant because watchmaking is definitely a part of encyclopedic topics. It covers both 19th and 20th century. Please check it out. Craftsmanship of mechanical watchmaking and art mechanics has been inscribed since 2020 (15.COM) on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.
I didn't took initiative my self to create the family tree to link watchmakers ancestors. It was recommended by @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) who had a long ever lasting experience and a fair neutrality.
The Team Patrol in WP were very rude, jealous, poorly informative, did wrong allegations that they never proved. They did also a lot of mistakes. And also never offered assistance to correct it. Kevlo007007 (talk) 21:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kevlo92400's deleted contributions were on Q117845762, which was Kevin Lognoné, Analyst. Bovlb (talk) 21:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry dear @Bovlb. I cannot reply to this. Because you deleted most of the contents with your friends. I don't have access to your links.
It is better to propose a contradictory examination rather than deleting automatically contents which cancel out all the coherence. Kevlo007007 (talk) 21:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was posting that in response to Dorades. The key point is that there is strong evidence here that you are the same person as Kevlo92400, and your claim to the contrary is therefore a deliberate attempt to mislead. That and your false accusations of vandalism make it very hard for us to assist you here. Bovlb (talk) 21:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I truly believe there is vandalism. You can check by yourself the deletion of these elements requested at
No rude manners anymore. Fair neutrality is needed. Kevlo007007 (talk) 22:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Contributors and administrators from "Team Patrol" on Wp:fr would be happy to know that, in front of a spam, team is "very rude, jealous, poorly informative, did wrong allegations and mistakes"... --Arroser (talk) 22:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I fully agree with @Arroser comments, As a member of the french wikipedia "Team Patrol", i confirm them. We have been very patient with this contributor. Over one year, at least 10 messages have been posted on his discussion page to help him and explain him its various vandalisms or promotional posts but what We received as replies are caracteristic of misconduct or misbehaviors ("No need to focus on producing parrot speech to hide your censorship methods"; "leave aside the quiet and comfortable stupidity of your jealousies" or this attack against an administrator "The expression blunder is perfectly suited to the profile of Bertrand Labévue"(the litteral translation of Labévue name would be Theblunder) among many others attacks).
Some examples of diversions of mainly Commons and Wikidata use, he placed an image from commons (that he uploaded here) in the article about the street "Grande Rue des Stuarts" about an "number 8: historical place of the watchmaker from Lognoné family". In this article are placed historical buildings and KevloXXXX placed this image (from his family) as an historical building however when looking at the official sources from "The inventory of cultural heritage in Brittany" nothing states that this number 8 of the street Grande Rue des Stuarts is of historical interest. So much that in fact, the historical buidings numbers shift from 7 to 9 with no N°8 stated in the inventory!
For Wikidata, The elements that have been deleted have nothing about notability, it's just a diversion use of Wikidata as a storage for its own genealogy (with not notable people), some still not notable remains. Moreover, although some of the elements he created may be kept (status on notability doubtfully potential, weak), some other are only created for promotion purposes such as the element [2] created for the "Lognoné museum" stated as a virtual museum but in fact an unfinished personnal website !
As another example, in this diff from the article La Ville-ès-Nonais he put a family children photo called "Family Lognoné" to show the monument "Motte féodale" (Feudal mound) and place called "La Malouinière" however nothing except the children was viewable. You can check by yourself the photo on the link provided and tell me if you see any feudal construction or any monuments!
Of the 248 modifications, he made in french wikipedia, quite >90% of them have been canceled by more than 20 contributors (including at least 6 administrors). Unfortunately, by checking its modifications and creations on wikidata, it seem to be same...
We can add that for his reply to the question of @Infrastruktur, he replied that for the book "THE CULT OF MITHRA FROM MONT-DOL TO MONT-SAINT-MICHEL Historical and archaeological investigation", he is acknoledge as a contributor stating that authors wrote "Thank you for instigating this book" that's wrong, the real translation of this thanks page (NOT A CONTRIBUTOR PAGE) is the following one "Thank you for instigating this survey" survey, not book ! and the second reply is also wrong since, he states about the French Academy of Sciences that his book was selected (without saying what book), the sentence is wrong since nothing in the two links show any book from this person and moreover, the competition has nothing about a national competition, it was only a local competition where the french sciences academy only wrote the subject and nothing else !
Regards GF38storic (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As already mentioned, 121 collectibles, relating to the know-how of three generations are kept at the Museum of Brittany (under their family name) :
Their mechanical clocks are also registered by the French ministry of culture & heritage :
There is no diversion. Watchmaking is an encyclopedic topic.
La Ville-ès-Nonais, Grande Rue des Stuarts and other places are the locations where they lived. All were also heritage places with feudal mound and “malouinières” architecture etc. This is difficult to argue because each item is related with Familysearch ID linked with all the proofs : date & place of birth, date & place of death, wedding contracts, data, archives etc...
You will find also other proofs in several genealogists networks and websites (Geneanet...).
French wikipedia "Team Patrol" has a very bad reputation. I am glad Wikidata and Wikipedia are different. Kevlo007007 (talk) 20:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I hereby confirm being contributor and instigator of this investigation book : "THE CULT OF MITHRA FROM MONT-DOL TO MONT-SAINT-MICHEL - Historical and archaeological investigation" This topic is famous worldwide and I visited myself the London Mithraeum Bloomberg Space : and the Louvre collections :
I also wrote different articles on Mithra :
Both authors mentioned my name at the end of the book : "Thank you for instigating this investigation book". @GF38storic is playing with words. He didn't read this book. Both authors were grateful for my dedicated work.
Second thing : the French Academy of Sciences was part of the jury which selected my research at national level. I was in the top three winners at the national level, three times. I received a travel grant to Argentina and Italy.
Please, here is the proof when I represented Sorbonne University : Kevlo007007 (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Kevlo007007, i'm not playing with words. Words are important in their meanings. You still provides links without any mention/proofs that you are a contributor of this book. The only thing you provided with your name is the calameo page with a photo of a "Remerciements" page ("Thanks" page) where in french it is stated "To Kevin Lognone, who was able to instigate this investigation" it is not written "To Kevin Lognone, who contributed to this book" NO, no no ! Yesterday i discussed with a barmaid and she gave me an idea on alcool diseases, that's not a justification to say that this barmaid contributed to my research activities, she only instigated me to search more about alcoolism !
Congratulation for your local french Department "Vienne" 2nd prize for a local departmental student competition but although open to all french universities, its goal is a local departmental goal for the french Department Vienne as shown in your document untitled "FuturS en Vienne" (meaning "FutureS in Vienne") and signed by local president of the departement Vienne (remember that in wikipedia french department presidents are not considered as notable enough).
As i stated before, if there are Wikidata elements that may become notable, we do not want them to be deleted, but those that have been deleted are non notable and we think that the diversion of wikidata to introduce non notable people only for elaborating its own genealogy is a diversion of Wikipedia/Wikidata use. Regards. GF38storic (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @GF38storic, please start to read this book : and come back to me later... You will see if my contribution and instigation were instrumental or not.
Regarding the "FuturS en Vienne" national competition, it was created by Rene Monory :, president of French Senate, former French minister of education and past president of Vienne local government. He created also this foundation with Francois Dalle, CEO of L'Oréal : Kevlo007007 (talk) 22:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Report concerning User:SAKHONCHOKMAO[edit]

SAKHONCHOKMAO (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))Reasons: Vandalism. ―Madamebiblio (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done blocked and will report at m:.
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Error recovery in element Q28924851[edit]

Пользователь UtherSRG (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) многократно вносит в элемент Aptenoperissus (Q28924851) неверные данные: monotypic fossil taxon (Q47487597) вместо fossil taxon (Q23038290). Online translation: User User:UtherSRG repeatedly enters incorrect data into the Aptenoperissus (Q28924851) element: monotypic fossil taxon (Q47487597) instead of fossil taxon (Q23038290). Qh13 (talk) 03:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@UtherSRG would you like to comment on this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We set both parent and child to monotypic. In this case the parent is the family and the child is the genus. This is done to support the taxonbar on Wikipedia. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Объясняю: согласно определению, монотипическим является таксон, у которого только 1 подчинённый таксон. В данном случае семейство Aptenoperissidae (Q28924852) является монотипическим таксоном, так как в него входит 1 род Aptenoperissus (Q28924851), а род является политипическим таксоном, так как в него входит 8 видов, вот авторитетные источники, подтверждающие последнее: fossilworks + PBDB. Не знаю для каких инструментов UtherSRG нужно неверное значение свойства P31, но ему необходимо изменить эти инструменты, потому что лжи в Викиданных быть не должно. Online translation: I explain: according to the definition, a monotypic taxon is one that has only 1 subordinate taxon. In this case, the family Aptenoperissidae (Q28924852) is a monotypic taxon, since it includes 1 genus Aptenoperissus (Q28924851), and the genus is a polytypical taxon, since it includes 8 species, here are authoritative sources confirming the latter: fossilworks + PBDB. I do not know for which tools UtherSRG needs the incorrect value of the P31 property, but it needs to change these tools, because there should be no lies in Wikidata. Qh13 (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Qh13: "a monotypic taxon is one that has only 1 subordinate taxon" is not strictly true. It is true for monotypic genera/species, but there are monotypic families and higher, which will invalidate that assertion. —Tom.Reding (talk) 12:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Извините, в моём определении допущена неточность: монотипическим является таксон, у которого только 1 подчинённый таксон следующего основного ранга. Таким образом в монотипическое семейство включают 1 род, а количество видов в нём не регламентировано. Online translation: Sorry, there is an inaccuracy in my definition: a monotypic taxon is one that has only 1 subordinate taxon of the next main rank. Thus, 1 genus is included in the monotypic family, and the number of species in it is not regulated. Qh13 (talk) 08:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, yes. I was not expecting that the mono family would have a poly genus. —Tom.Reding (talk) 19:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Просьба заблокировать User:UtherSRG и проверить все его правки, потому что он представляет ложные значения P31 в других элементах: Q30021471 - к виду вообще не применяется термин монотипический. Online translation: Please block User:UtherSRG and check all its edits, because it represents false values of P31 in other elements: Q30021471 - the term monotypic does not apply to the species at all. --Qh13 (talk) 05:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jts1882, Tom.Reding: Am I in the wrong here? Did I misunderstand what you said I should do? - UtherSRG (talk) 11:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems correct to me (assuming it is monotypic), as monotypic fossil taxon (Q47487597) is a subclass of both monotypic taxon (Q310890) and fossil taxon (Q23038290). Jts1882 (talk) 11:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, now I see the issue (it's hard to read the explanation with the two languages intermingled). Aptenoperissus is not monotypic, so only the family should use monotypic fossil taxon (Q47487597). Jts1882 (talk) 11:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Absolutely right. Qh13 (talk) 08:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
UtherSRG, Вы должны проверить все свои правки, в которых указали P31 = monotypic fossil taxon (Q47487597) и отменить те из них, в которых у таксона более 1 подчинённого таксона следующего ранга. Например: в семейство включён 1 род — оставляем monotypic fossil taxon (Q47487597), в семейство включено 2 и более рода — возвращаем fossil taxon (Q23038290). Online translation: UtherSRG, you should check all your edits in which you specified P31 = monotypic fossil taxon (Q47487597) and cancel those in which the taxon has more than 1 subordinate taxon of the next rank. For example: 1 genus is included in the family — we leave monotypic fossil taxon (Q47487597), 2 or more genera are included in the family — we return fossil taxon (Q23038290). Qh13 (talk) 09:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Дополнение: всем видам должно быть возвращено fossil taxon (Q23038290), потому что следующий "основной ранг" — особь, а виды из одной особи современная наука не описывает. Вид может быть описан по единственной окаменелости, но по умолчанию считается, что особей было несколько и лишь одна из них дошла до современных учёных. Online translation: Addendum: all species should be returned fossil taxon (Q23038290), because the next "main rank" is an individual, and modern science does not describe species from one individual. The species can be described from a single fossil, but by default it is believed that there were several individuals and only one of them has reached modern scientists. Qh13 (talk) 09:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will make only the parent monotypic. I'm not sure why I thought to do both parent and child. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is there an easy way to search for these changes? - UtherSRG (talk) 19:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Problema con mi empresa[edit]

Hola Administrador tengo un problema con el nombre de mi empresa. CasaPiedra al escribir el nombre de la empresa que administro, aparece otra empresa en primer lugar (metropolitan santiago) el cual tiene linkeado el nombre de mi empresa y genera confusión en la personas y clientes y quisiera saber como solucionar este problema. (habia hecho un reporte hace un tiempo pero el problema persiste) quedo atento a comentarios Claudio Ubilla (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This request appears to be related to the fact that Metropolitan Santiago Convention & Event Center (Q5755742) has the Spanish aliases "Casapiedra" and "Casa Piedra". According to the ESWP article, this building was formerly known as "Casapiedra", so this does not seem wildly incorrect. I suspect that this is somehow related to Google search results. I'm not sure what we're supposed to do to resolve this, especially with no information on what other entity might be involved. Bovlb (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
looks like many companies share the name "Casa Piedra" not sure there's anything we can do here. BrokenSegue (talk) 22:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks like whoever owned the "Casapiedra" name moved to another building (which is why the original convention center was renamed). I did a Google search and it seems to be displaying the correct info in the knowledge panel - it just happens to bring the es.wp article among the search results. I concur that there is no action to take on our side.
@Claudio Ubilla: Las correcciones en las búsquedas de Google son directamente con ellos; generalmente hay un enlace que dice "sugerir una edición" en la información que se muestra del lado derecho de la pantalla al hacer una búsqueda. –FlyingAce✈hello 18:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unblock request backlog[edit]

An unblock request from a user I blocked has been languishing for a week at User talk:Biirchin. Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 16:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Family of writers[edit]

The page of the French writer Augustin Jeanneau has been removed by vandalism. Same for his daugther : Marie Françoise Jeanneau. Only, his son Augustin Jeanneau Junior, French psychiatrist is still there :

Can you explain why @Vargenau ?

Regarding Augustin Jeanneau father, here are all his books :

L'Art du théâtre en France. Note sur quelques tentatives de redressement, impr. de S. Pacteau (Luçon), 1930, 29 pages (notice BnF no FRBNF32282759) ;

Les Regrets et autres œuvres poétiques de Joachim Du Bellay, préface et annotations par Augustin Jeanneau, P. Hérault (Cholet), 1944, non paginé (notice BnF no FRBNF32046801) ;

Petit guide de la littérature d'aujourd'hui : de 1940 à nos jours, F. Lanore (Paris), 1966, 189 pages (notice BnF no FRBNF3305628) ;

Cholet et les Choletais après la Belle époque, Éditions du Choletais (Cholet), 1974, 247 pages, avec la collaboration de Louis Chaigne (notice BnF no FRBNF33056288) ;

Le Parler populaire en Anjou, par Augustin Jeanneau et Adolphe Durand, Éditions du Choletais (Angers), 1977, 197 pages (notice BnF no FRBNF34654612) ;

Cholet, sous-préfecture, 20000 habitants : au temps des années folles, Edipro (Nîmes), 2015, 238 pages (ISBN 978-2-917756-23-2) (notice BnF no FRBNF44448703) ;

Cholet à travers les rues, par Augustin Jeanneau et Adolphe Durand, Édipro (Nîmes), 2018, 161 pages (ISBN 978-2-917756-40-9) (notice BnF no FRBNF34654612).

Here is the book of Marie Françoise Jeanneau : Kevlo007007 (talk) 18:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please read Wikidata:Vandalism. Sloppy accusations do not strengthen your case. Bovlb (talk) 19:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please explain the reasons why all the contents were removed. Very agressive manners ... Bring objective reasons. This is not a game. Kevlo007007 (talk) 19:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you have a deliberate attempt to damage or compromise the integrity of Wikidata ? Fortunately, vandalism is fairly easy to detect. Without notice, all those contents have been removed : Kevlo007007 (talk) 19:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Jeanneau" ; the subject is already discussed here Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard#Family_of_watchmakers ??? Lognoné-Jeanneau is the same family [3], so it's always the same family spam ? --Arroser (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not really. You mix a lot of things. One is related to watchmaking and innovations. The other one is related to French literature. Your mind looks very confused and your family spam allegation is totally wrong. I guess you are sharing wrong statements. Kevlo007007 (talk) 15:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No those posts are always related to your family : Lognoné, Jeanneau (and Chanvril also ?). This is your only contribution topic, even if one is a watchmaker or a writer. --Arroser (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, dear @Arroser, again you are mixing everything. There are THREE different generations of watchmakers : total EIGHT different watchmakers : six men, two women.
121 collectibles, relating to the know-how of THREE generations, are kept at the Museum of Brittany (under their family name) :
Their mechanical clocks are also registered by the French ministry of culture & heritage :
Jeanneau is ANOTHER Family related to French literature and social sciences. You find all their publications (French national library) and academic curriculum :
Author and historian :
Professor emeritus at the University of Paris-II. - Former president of the University of Poitiers :
Psychiatrist, psychoanalyst. - Member of the Psychoanalytic Society of Paris, general director of the Mental Health Association of the 13th arrondissement of Paris (in 1990) :
Their ancestor was a textile broker : Kevlo007007 (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marie-Françoise Jeanneau, French author[edit]


Marie Françoise Jeanneau, French author has been removed. I cannot access to the item anymore which has been deleted.

Here are the references about the book she wrote about Marie Noël, female candidate for the Nobel Prize for Literature .

Can you please restore her item ? Many thanks for your attention. Kevlo007007 (talk) 22:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

item in question: Q124567621. Deleted by @Vargenau Estopedist1 (talk) 07:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No book available at the BNF: Vargenau (talk) 09:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Varguenau has deleted the French author Augustin Jeanneau who has 10 books available at the BNF :;jsessionid=55EE35A012B378BB14A367BDF59B8A55?motRecherche=Augustin+Jeanneau&critereRecherche=0&depart=0&facetteModifiee=ok
I suspect he did that by vandalism. Can you restore it ? Kevlo007007 (talk) 09:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please refrain from blaming administrators for vandalism. There is no reason for deletion when an author provides a clear indication of notability shortly after the item creation. --Wolverène (talk) 07:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks @Wolverène. Can you please restore this item in question: Q124567621 ? Kevlo007007 (talk) 09:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whoever ends up taking consensus on the appeal should consider any items where notability was retroactively indicated. There is no need to bother the deleting admin with this. Infrastruktur (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Notability was not retroactively indicated. Those author had already those references. They wrote their own books, by themselves. Kevlo007007 (talk) 12:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As in: if those references were present on the item at that point in time it wouldn't be deleted. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 09:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Partial timeline:

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Can you please restore this item in question: Q124567621 ? Kevlo007007 (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Augustin Jeanneau, French author[edit]


Augustin Jeanneau (1902-1992) , French author has been removed. I cannot access to the item anymore which has been deleted.

This French author Augustin Jeanneau has 10 books available at the French national library (BNF) :;jsessionid=55EE35A012B378BB14A367BDF59B8A55?motRecherche=Augustin+Jeanneau&critereRecherche=0&depart=0&facetteModifiee=ok

This author is also recommended here :

Many thanks for your attention. Kevlo007007 (talk) 10:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The bookselling websites are surely reduntant here. On the other hand, BNF ID and this article(?) are enough to regard the person notable (clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity). You should have left the links in the item before it was deemed to be not notable and then deleted. --Wolverène (talk) 07:15, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓  Augustin Jeanneau (Q124568703) has been restored. I have no specific opinion about the other related items which were deleted as well. --Wolverène (talk) 07:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you so much @Wolverène
Can you please restore this item Q124606226 , father of : ?
Auguste Marie Jeanneau (1875-1918) : Kevlo007007 (talk) 09:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Concerns re: not answering and reverting question on talk page by User:CV213[edit]

I have asked what I believe is a legitimate question on the talk page of @CV213 - see this message. They have reverted my post of the question three times. I would like to request mediation here. Thanks, Spinster 💬 15:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would just take this as a sign that they do not have a good answer to your question Ymblanter (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks @Ymblanter, I agree with that observation. The user has moved the discussion to the talk page of one of the affected items: Talk:Q1402057. Spinster 💬 15:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Report concerning User:Behraya[edit]

Behraya (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))Reasons: Spam / Advertisement account ―Nastoshka (talk) 10:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: only one edit, which is deleted. No further actions after warning Estopedist1 (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Q11468962が、IPユーザーによる荒らしが続くため、保護を依頼します。他にも、同項目を荒らすユーザーが編集している項目で、荒らし回避の保護が必要な項目があると思うので、できれば処置を希望します。また、英語力がないこともあり、保護依頼がこのページで適切なのかわかっていません。違うのでしたら、正しい依頼ページも教えて下さい。日本語で失礼しました。 Khhy (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done – Protected 3 months. –FlyingAce✈hello 17:22, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Estopedist1 (talk) 07:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Report concerning User:JaStooo[edit]

JaStooo (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))Reasons: March 1st edit to Max Verstappen (Q2239218) prematurely declaring him the winner of 2024 Formula One World Championship (Q113628886)Keplersj (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What action do you want? This is an inappropriate edit, sure, but you also already warned him. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm true, I filed this report as a matter of standard practice. I suppose it may be worth protecting Max Verstappen (Q2239218). Given that the first Grand Prix of the season was yesterday, if Max continues to place 1st in these grand prix events I imagine the temptation of passers-by to prematurely declare him the winner will be great. Keplersj (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure. I'll protect for two weeks. Unless there's something that needs to be done here, I'll make it resolved.
✓ Done
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Helena Meirelles – Page move[edit]

Hi there, from the EN Wikipedia, so not familiar with procedural stuff like this. Q5703664 is spelled incorrectly—it is Helena Meireles; it should be Helena Meirelles, with two ls in the last name. Aza24 (talk) 04:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. It's easy to rename here, since you just change the label in that language rather than actually move the page.
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Report concerning User:2400:2200:7CC:6E75::/64[edit]

2400:2200:7CC:6E75::/64 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))Reasons: Same as Special:Contributions/2400:2200:6E7:BAD1::/64. I also request semi-protection for Yuto Nakajima (Q1197256), Yōko Maki (Q444165), Toshihiro Nikai (Q1133880), Masahito Moriyama (Q6782391), Mio Sugita (Q11522313), Osaka Restoration Association (Q385785), Nippon Ishin no Kai (Q21499745), and Takaaki Ishii (Q17128942). ―Kokage si (talk) 14:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Seems to be the same person, so he gets 1 month this time. The network is too big for a range-block to be practical. Infrastruktur (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Infrastruktur (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lake Como LTA[edit]

See also Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive/2023/06#Lake_Como_2. Horcrux (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Can some admin hide the disruptive and offensive edit-summary on Ḥabīb al-Raḥmān al-Aʻẓamī (Q5636758)? I reverted their edit on Commons and they came here. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done. Madamebiblio (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Madamebiblio: It seems you deleted the revision rather than hiding the edit-summary? It is still visible. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The edits by Hazim saeed are disruptive but they are not abusive. The edit-summary by the IP address is what I was referring to. Apologies for the confusion. Hazim saeed is a different user who is doing unreferenced content additions (likely in good-faith). ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TheAafi thank you letting me know. I apologize for the confusion. It's my first day as Admin  ;-( Madamebiblio (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Madamebiblio: Cool. It happens. When you need to hide an edit summary, you just need to select "edit-summary" from the list and unselect other options: "revision text" and "Editor's username/IP address" once you click Change visibility. Best regards and congratulations on your successful RfA. ─ The Aafī (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TheAafi thank you for your comprehension and explanations. Lesson learned. And I hope not to disappoint this community. Best regards. Madamebiblio (talk) 19:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]