User talk:Lymantria/Archive 3

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

Hi Lymantria,

If you have a moment, would you kindly create some of these: 1, 2, 3. I could then complete them. --- Jura 20:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I will give it a couple more days. Lymantria (talk) 05:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for 1/3. It just stayed under a year for the first one. Good occasion to check how L-space has evolved since. BTW, I set the 2nd to ready as well. --- Jura 10:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Done it. Lymantria (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

RMaung (WMF) 17:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

RMaung (WMF) 19:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I created a new page where I started collecting sites that could be added to Mix'n'match and I plan to expand it with the ones that already have scrapers by category. Feel free to use, expand. Best, --Adam Harangozó (talk) 09:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Lymantria,

Would you create this one? (I can fill it once initial creation done). I think with 3 favoring it and all concerns addressed it should be ready to go. --- Jura 18:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Lymantria, did you really think this was a good idea, given that there was only a single !vote in favour of the property, and when, after Jura himself had previously marked this proposal (his own) as 'ready', that had been reverted by User:ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (diff) ? Jheald (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I count two support votes, although Thierry Caro did not use a template to express his support. What makes you think I didn't really think it to be a good idea? Lymantria (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

As a closer, it's not your job to think whether you think it's a good idea. It's your job to review the discussion. If you really want to let the world know you think it's a good idea, the way to do that is through a comment in the discussion, not a close. Jheald (talk) 20:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Pardon me, but you did ask me here whether (quote) "you really think this was a good idea". Now don't blame me for reacting to that. Lymantria (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Lymantria. At Wikidata:Properties for deletion, there are a series of sports properties listed for deletion (some used, others less so). I think you had first proposed some of these. You might want to comment on these requests. --- Jura 15:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Lymantria (talk) 15:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello Lymantria, and thanks for the last time you granted me the flooder flag. Sorry if this is not the appropriate place; if you don't want me to ask for flooder flag here, please tell me.

I want to add ~ 50,000 (less than that, actually) Persian description to items about television series. I have checked everything and it is my understanding that the list is of enough quality. The structure of descriptions is like the English ones: instance of + country of origin + genre. For those without a Persian label for genre or country of origin, I have tweaked the list and I won't add descriptions to them. If possible, please grant me the flooder flag, or if I should make a formal request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard, please advise. Thank you. Ahmad^talk 06:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done Granted for a week again. Please, remove the flag if you are done. Lymantria (talk) 08:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Ahmad^talk 03:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Con mis cambios he generado cuatro ediciones. decibel relativo a 1 picovatio (Q23977060) ·· 20:34 6 may 2020‎ Pla y Grande Covián
Creo lo he hecho bien, basándome en: es:Vatio#Picovatio · en:Watt#Picowatt (versus ¿picaWatt (pica~)? · versus: pico~ ... (ídem: español)). I think, now it's ok. I consult you about'cause I've seen you (article history). Thank you. P.S: picowatt & picovatio (pW). --Pla y Grande Covián (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Just the links to enwiki and eswiki should not be in the descriptions. Lymantria (talk) 05:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

LymaBot merge the noble family Zeppelin (Q191407) with the Category:Zeppelin family (Q86809288). --Kolja21 (talk) 13:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Fixed it. Thanks for bringing it forward. Lymantria (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Dan Koehl has nominated for having his adminship returned. I am a little concerned about how it is going. As a Crat from Wikispecies I of course have no say here so wanted to voice my concerns here. I do not think it was appropriate for Dan to have brought this up at Wikispecies. He stated he was not canvassing, but the result of linking the RfA was always going to have this result. Likewise it concerns me that some 6 different editors, some are Sysops, from the SW WP have also now commented and copied over information from the SW WP to oppose this nomination. I think the situation is getting a little out of hand. Clearly some of those editors from SW WP do not have voting rights on Wikidata, one had never even posted on Wikidata before, another said he was pinged. I am concerned that canvassing is going on there too. In my own vote I tried to be clear I knew nothing about SW WP issues and supported based on Wikispecies and Wikidata. However, I did vote after Dan raised the issue at Wikispecies. I leave it to you whether or not to stike mine and possibly Hectar Bottai's votes. Am asking you as a fellow Crat to look at this issue. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 21:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Could you explain me what is the sense to hold redirect pages on Wikidata after merging. I can't understand mechanism. Nothing links here and these pages are orphan. For example: one user will have a fantasy and will create 500 pages for one subject on different wiki. Another one will merge these pages. In this way we have 500 redirect pages wich are useless. For what? After deleting these pages can be useful for more sensible subjects in my opinion.
On polish translation of help page is after merging withdrawn item can be delete, send request with description merched with item.... I guess that it's mistake? Tommy Jantarek (talk) 06:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

External sources may link to the item that has become a redirect, so we cannot be sure that these are indeed "orphan". Deleted items will never be reused. See also Help:Redirects. Lymantria (talk) 08:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

It is a notable entity why this page has been deleted?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mustips (talk • contribs).

It was not notable, because of lack of independent serious sources stating its notability. See Wikidata:Notability: "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references". Lymantria (talk) 16:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi@Lymantria: I see you are making wikidata items for commons categories. This is not helpful. When I write an article for "Cyathostemon", I expect to find the "Category:Cyathostemon" linked to the wikidata item "Cyathestemon" and not to a very different wikidata item. (When the ccommons category("Category:Cyathostemon") is linked to "Cyathostemon" a reader of the wikipedia article can find all the associated images, when they click on commons at the LHS) It would be helpful if you did not continue to do this. (I know the practice is widespread, but it is NOT helpful.) Regards, MargaretRDonald (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi @MargaretRDonald:, Please stop doing your changes. Commons categories are categories and they can be added to category items without the lack of helpfulness you are describing. See for instance w:Cremastocheilini, it:Cremastocheilini, nl:Cremastocheilini and no:Cremastocheilini. All have a commonslink at the LHS, while the commons category is linked to the category item by the use of category's main topic (P301) at Cremastocheilini (Q1252945), just as it should be in the ideal world. Your repairing is at best Wikipedia:If it ain't broke, don't fix it (Q11298231). Lymantria (talk) 05:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Lymantria: What you have pointed me to, is precisely what I would like. On the other hand Cyathostemon (Q17047770) and Category:Cyathostemon (Q18282608) where the commons category is attached to Category:Cyathostemon (Q18282608) is really not helpful but is apparently the result of a decision taken. See the discussion at User talk:Mike Peel# Making wikidata items for commons categories. So clearly I have to learn to live with this nuisance. MargaretRDonald (talk) 04:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't see why it is not helpful, but indeed we'll have to deal with the decision taken. Lymantria (talk) 05:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Dag, Lymantria. Met enkele wijzigingen op Q13754125 en Q8995226 heb je de interwikilink tussen c:Category:Mayors of Alkmaar en nl:Lijst van burgemeesters van Alkmaar verwijderd. Ik heb wel vijf- of zeshonderd ([1] en [2]) van dergelijke Commons-categorieën aangemaakt, en het heeft me nogal wat moeite gekost om te bewerkstelligen dat die Commons-categorieën gewoon worden gekoppeld aan de Wikipedia-lijst (zoals bij elk ander Wikipedia-artikel) en niet aan de Wikipedia-categorie, omdat het volgens mij weinig nuttig is om twee onvolledige categorieën aan elkaar te koppelen, terwijl een link tussen de complete lijsten en de Commons-afbeeldingen veel handiger is. Nu heb je dus voor Alkmaar die koppeling verwijderd, en ik zou die graag weer herstellen, maar ik wil je vooral vragen om dit niet ook te gaan doen bij al die honderden andere, waarin ik veel tijd heb gestoken. Er is geen regel die zegt dat Wikimedia-categorieën niet aan lijsten mogen worden gekoppeld en het is zelfs zeer wenselijk om dat wel te doen. Voor de duidelijkheid: het gaat me dus niet om de infobox, maar om de interwikilinks die in de linkerzijbalk staan, waaruit door jouw wijzigingen nu de connectie met de Wikipedia-lijsten is verdwenen. Als je het niet erg vind, dan draai ik je wijzigingen terug (als je het zelf terug wilt draaien: heel graag, natuurlijk). Vriendelijke groet, Eissink (talk) 10:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC).

P.S. Zie ook deze discussie. Eissink (talk) 10:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC).

Ik heb er moeite mee. Commons categorieën worden maar her en der gelinkt en iedereen schijnt weer wat anders belangrijk te vinden. In jouw opzet is dus het vreemde het geval dat de Engelse categorie w:Category:Mayors of Alkmaar niet gelinkt is aan c:Category:Mayors of Alkmaar. Ronduit bizar. Dat zou de eerste categorie moeten zijn die gelinkt is. Het zou allemaal beter gaan als je geen lijst, maar gewoon een artikel "burgemeester van Alkmaar" zou hebben. Via category's main topic (P301)/topic's main category (P910) zou alles ideaal gelinkt zijn. Hmm, maar ik ben dan ook niet bepaald een fan van lijsten. Dus doe maar weer, maar weet dat ik het niks vind. Lymantria (talk) 12:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

En ik ben het er op geen enkele manier mee eens, mocht je zoals eerder category related to list (P1754) verwijderen. Dat is echt het verstoppen van essetiële links tussen items hier op wikidata. Lymantria (talk) 12:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Als je er zoveel bezwaar tegen hebt, dan laat ik het maar zo. Ik kan je wel zeggen, uit eigen ervaring, dat het erg makkelijk is om vanuit Commons direct naar de lijst te kunnen, terwijl de meerwaarde van een link naar de categorie wat mij betreft echt kleiner is – de vraag is welk doel de voorkeur moet verdienen, en waarom dan wel. In elk geval is het ergens vreemd om een 'lijst' anders te behandelen dan een gewoon 'artikel', omdat een lijst volgens mij ook gewoon een artikel is. Aanvankelijk wist Mike Peel het overigens zo te koppelen, dat in de zijbalk zowel naar de lijst werd gelinkt als naar de categorieën in verschillende talen, dat laatste dan als er geen lijst in die taal was; die situatie leek me het best, maar Wikidata lijkt er niet op ingericht en de verschillende categorieën waarop dat was toegepast zijn weer terug naar "normaal". Dat ik P1754 verstopte, komt omdat ik niet al te handig ben op Wikidata, ik snap dat dat niet wenselijk is. Het is jammer dat Wikidata kennelijk niet goed in staat is twee functies te scheiden, nl. enerzijds een (kennis)database en anderzijds een intermedium / koppeling tussen verschillende projecten – mijn opzet, Commons linken aan de lijsten, lijkt me echt niet kwalijk, maar het is blijkbaar te veel gevraagd. Bedankt voor je antwoord, ik laat het dan maar zoals het is, maar ik hoop niet dat je nu al die andere Mayors-categorieën die ik heb aangemaakt actief gaat omzetten. Vriendelijke groet, Eissink (talk) 13:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC).

Het linken van commons aan lijsten is niet kwalijk, maar het ontlinken van andere categorieën in andere talen wel. Het is ook bijzonder lastig om vast te stellen wat nou voorrang heeft: artikel, categorie of lijst. Vandaar dat ik dan liefst halstarrig vasthoud aan categorie linken aan categorie. For the sake of unity zal ik zelf Alkmaar weer terugzetten. Lymantria (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Bedankt. Het is geen halszaak, en ik heb er eigenlijk wel bijna spijt van dat ik er aan ben begonnen, want het heeft al veel te veel gedoe gegeven, wat nooit de bedoeling is geweest. Groet, Eissink (talk) 13:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC).

IP 137.101.15.9 is this user's globally locked sock diff. It is known for the type of editions and content it adds to the elements. Regards, --Ytha67 (talk) 13:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Noted. Lymantria (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Lymantria,

I noticed your editing stats in Wikidata, which led me to look up your profile. Thank you for all the great work!

I’m reaching out to you because I’m working on a research project about understanding what motivates editors like you to contribute to Wikidata. We’re also interested in learning about how you feel your contributions are being used outside of Wikidata. Since you are such an active community member, I thought you might also be interested in helping to build the broader community’s knowledge about Wikidata, and why it matters.

If you’re interested, let’s schedule a time to talk over Zoom, or whichever platform you prefer. If you are interested, please fill in a questionnaire. The conversation should take about 30 min.

Hope you have a great day,

Chuankaz (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Lymatnria,

Why is the request closed while the discussion is still ongoing? --- Jura 06:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

There had been 19 votes, week voting time was over, sufficient support. Your call for reconsidering votes came while I was preparing the closing (I had an edit conflict with you). Lymantria (talk) 06:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no requirement to close this minutes within the scheduled time. I'm not really convinced the candidate has understood WD:N and this may not have been clear to the "voters". --- Jura 06:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

That I understand. Lymantria (talk) 06:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello Lymantria, on this, I leave the puppet accounts associated with the user Angelmunoz50, so that they have knowledge although some are not in wikidata:

• Nobelgentil main account
• puppetry (verified in eswiki): this case

Bacardi Rum, Angelcarmona1996, Angelmunoz50, LolaMiller95, ScoobyMiller40, LaraLili2005, DaisyBus2017, MuffySeville56, LaraLili2000, MarioMiller90, SoulMiller90, LiliaMiller2002, MaffyMiller2000, MaffyMiller2008, AngelMiller30LaraMiller2015

• and numerous dynamic IPs (31.4.183.192, 47.60.38.75, 137.101.15.9 which you use to jump from one wiki to another. It is a global problem.

I leave this information to you because on several occasions I have considered abandoning my editions in Wikidata after several months of daily interference with this user, since my time as editor is reverting to it, leaving notices in the checkuser, reporting on the administrators' Board , even request locks in Meta. The case is known to the administrators of eswiki, my main account. I believe that if administrators know about this case, they will be able to act effectively against its vandalized editions and evasions. Thanks for your time, --Ytha67 (talk) 07:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, this may be helpful. Lymantria (talk) 08:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Lymantria,

What do you think of this one? --- Jura 07:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I need some time for that one to think. I'm not entirely sure. Lymantria (talk) 10:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, this is about Template:Zt3857.2.1 (Q22997926). I saw that you created this item, I'm going to move the sitelinks to that article item The identity of the invasive fouling bryozoan Watersipora subtorquata (d’Orbigny) and some other congeneric species (Q29462950), let me explain why. Since a few month I upload, manualy and with GWtoolset, images from scholary articles. The categoryes for the images in Commons are linked to the item for the articles and also to Wikispecies, one exemple:

c:Category:Media from Matsumoto and van Ofvegen 2016 - 10.3897/zookeys.587.8188 linked to

the item The genus Bebryce (Cnidaria, Octocorallia, Plexauridae) at Japan, with descriptions of three new species (Q24200120) and to

Wikispecies species:Template:Matsumoto & van Ofvegen, 2016

This allow me to display the infos about the article into Commons from Wikidata with the Wikidata Infobox, and a direct link to Wikispecies.

I'm going to upload soon the images from the article Vieira, Jones & Taylor, 2014, hence I will move all site links to the article item. The Commons category for the article, Wikispecies and NL wikipedia will be therefore linked. What do you think? Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I think this is very doubtful. In my opinion we should not mix categories and templates with "main". I know there is an exception for commons categories and even that one is controversial within the wikidata community. But this is one step further. I think it is best to first seek consensus, for instance by a RfC. Lymantria (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh, as part of my contributions, I already added a lot of sitelinks from wikispecies reference templates to articles and I'm not alone. No idea about how much items are concerned, see also: [3]. As per Wikidata:Notability, there is currently no other way to link a Wikispecies (reference) template to the article item if there is no other entry in the Wikimedia project. A pity. Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for my poor English langage, I wanted to say that we can not create an item for a Wikispecies reference template unless there is another such template within the Wikimedia projects (and it seems very rare), sitelink is here a shortcut. Furthermore after to just have read Help:Sitelinks, I fail to see where it is stated that this is not allowed. Is it stated somewhere? Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

...and Template:Zt3857.2.1 (Q22997926) is not even linked to the article item. Not sure what is the point to create several items for one single scholary article, furthermore if those items are not even linked one each other. This don't allow the interproject navigation if I put the Commons category sitelink within the article item (where it righly fit), and more important don't allow to potentially get the data from the article item (e.g. to create a citation template from the data coming from the article item ).... Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I understand your points. I myself have no objections. The way to link article and template would be through template has topic (P1423) and topic's main template (P1424). I still think that is the most correct way. Lymantria (talk) 06:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah ok, but when working in Wikispecies e.g. in species:Template:Lyman, 1869 I'm quite happy to have a link inside the left vertical menu bar to the item (I can jump from one to the other, and this is useful as I work with the items too, e.g. to indicate the first description of a taxon) and to the Commons category when this one exist (then I can jump to one from another too..). But my point was to ask your opinion about moving the sitelinks of Template:Zt3857.2.1 (Q22997926), and you answered, thanks you. Therefore I will not move them, but I will continue my stuff in the same way I already did. Good luck. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:21, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

That's okay. Lymantria (talk) 10:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Hiǃ Since you first partially blocked them about 3 weeks ago, they have started vandalising in the main namespace. I think that it might be time to consider a full block for them. Let me know what you think. Best, --Prahlad (tell me all about it / private venue) (Please {{ping}} me) 20:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. Lymantria (talk) 05:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello Lymantria/Archive 3,

Really sorry for the inconvenience. This is a gentle note to request that you check your email. We sent you a message titled "The Community Insights survey is coming!". If you have questions, email surveys@wikimedia.org.

You can see my explanation here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Добрый день, создайте пожалуйста, для Chuvash encyclopedia (Q19909792). Белорецкий (talk) 16:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you want me to do. Lymantria (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

You have created [4] please create one for Chuvash encyclopedia (Q19909792). Chuvash encyclopedia Online ID identifier for an entry on the official website of the Chuvash encyclopedia Белорецкий (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Such request should be done at a subpage of Wikidata:Property proposal, for instance Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control. Lymantria (talk) 17:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello,

Can you please unblock so that I can test?

Thank you

Vargenau (talk) 12:28, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

OK. Lymantria (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Vargenau (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi. You blocked my IP address just now. Firstly, I did not even know I wasn't logged in and I don't think I did anything that could be tagged as vandalism. I understand you are doing your job but t is really discouraging when admins do that. I hope you rather send a warning next time before taking such a drastic action. Also 3 months is a long time. Lol I don't use wikidata much and today is my first time. I wished it was more welcoming. Obiorah Precious Oby (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@Obiorah Precious Oby: I think you are talking about this IP? That IP had been blocked before and had received warning. Lymantria (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Ooh alright. I apologize for the misunderstanding. Obiorah Precious Oby (talk) 18:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@Obiorah Precious Oby: No problem. If receiving a block seems to be the first encounter with wikidata, I can understand there is a slight frustration. Lymantria (talk) 18:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Mr/s. Lymantria,

I am a new user of Wikidata and I am arguing in favor of the restoration of the event of periodical occurrence named "Batalha da Escada". I am sure that the event meets the criteria for notability declared in https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Notability.

An entry in wikipedia has been created for the event: [5]

Best regards, Jhcfernandes (talk) 00:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I undeleted the item. Lymantria (talk) 06:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Jhcfernandes (talk) 13:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC) Thanks for reconsidering de deletion. BTW I am working on an academic project for promotion of cultural fruition of events that occur in territories like university campuses and also low income neighborhoods. Given that the covid-19 pandemic will sometime be over, I think that is suitable to promote the reoccupation of university campuses and public popular spaces based on crowdsourcing semantically rich information about popular cultural events that occur in territories. Given the importance of face to face contacts for enhancement of democracy, perhaps Wikidata and OpenStreetMap could team together to offer special guidelines for reoccupation of territories by their inhabitants. The promotion of popular cultural movements should be an alternative to technological solutions being adopted by governments and big data companies for (epidemiological?) control of population in cities. Could you provide me with further pointers to knowledge / guidelines already produced by Wikidata about ideias like this? Best regards Jhcfernandes (talk) 13:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC) Perhaps Wikinews should be part of the solution. Sorry for my mistakes. Still getting to know the Wikimedia foundation ecosystem. Jhcfernandes (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC) I found two projects that are closely related to the technical aspects of my data designs: WikiProject Cultural events and WikiProject Performing arts Jhcfernandes (talk) 14:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

In some projects there is a distinction between Wikimedia topic category (Q59541917) and other categories (both types are Wikimedia category (Q4167836)) to the point that they form separate categorisation trees (like in pl.wiki there are 'topic categories', 'object categories' and 'meta categories'). I'm not sure that it was the right thing to merge this two. Wostr (talk) 13:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I decided on a long standing request at Wikidata:Requests for deletions, see Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions/Archive/2020/11/25#Q59541917. I don't think the subdivision of different types of categories is a general and uniform subdivision. 14:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

This is the same situation as with Wikimedia set index article (Q15623926) which in many projects are just normal disambiguation pages, but in WD items are likely to have Wikimedia set index article (Q15623926) from en.wiki rather than Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410) from most projects. Wostr (talk) 14:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I understand. Perhaps this type of subdivision deserves a RfC. Lymantria (talk) 15:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello. What was there? Eurohunter (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

See Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/2020/11/27#Q65028018. Lymantria (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Okey but I still don't know what was there. Eurohunter (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Youtube user ID. Lymantria (talk) 07:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Hoi Lymantria,

Enige dagen geleden vroeg ik verwijdering van Gerjan J Navis aan.

In plaats daarvan heb je een redirect naar 'Gerjan Navis' gecreëerd. Prima natuurlijk, maar:

1. hoe doe je dat?
2. kan een niet-admin dat ook?

In andere projecten is het gemakkelijk, mag elke boerengenotspegel dit en is ook een hulppagina voorhanden.

Hartelijke groeten, Klaas `Z4␟` V:  09:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Hoi Klaas, Voor het samenvoegen/redirecten gebruik ik merge.js. Dat kan een niet-admin ook. Zie Help:Samenvoegen voor meer details. Als een item al wat langer bestaat is het aanmaken van een redirect te prefereren boven verwijderen, vanwege (mogelijk) extern gebruik. Groet, Lymantria (talk) 10:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

 OK dankjewel! Klaas `Z4␟` V:  11:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

I had logged in at English Wikipedia, however when I made this edit on Wikidata, my IP Address was exposed. Could you kindly help hide that IP address from public view for that particular edit? (I am aware that it is possible to have the IP address hidden for a certain edit entry because I have seen it being actioned in the past) Thanks. --DaveZ123 (talk) 04:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done --Lymantria (talk) 07:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I hope you're doing fine. I'd like to ask you for some help with the Selena Gomez (Q83287) article, since it appears five times Justin Bieber as her couple. I tried to fix it but I couldn't since you protected the page. Would you fix it, please? Thanks a lot, take care. Best regards. --Diegomezbus (talk) 08:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

All seem to be sourced. Lymantria (talk) 08:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The sources say that they were in a relationship at these specific points in (2013, 2014 and 2015), they never actually state when these relationships started and ended. The current model is preferable one as it follows the sources exactly without going into speculation. --Trade (talk) 00:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Diegomezbus:, please stop reverting? --Trade (talk) 08:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Dear @Lymantria: I have made request for Rollbacker right in Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Other rights But recently one admin has inclined to decline my request he told me that he will I'll leave it for another administrator to consider it. So if you dont mind can you check and tell me if i am eligible for Rollbacker rights or not? If i am not eligible then I will work hard to prove my self and will submit the new request in future some time. Thanks BubblySnow  💬 12:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I agree with the other admin. Lymantria (talk) 06:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

No Problem @Lymantria:, Thanks for your suggestion, I will improve my editing skills and I will resubmit the same request in future. Thanks BubblySnow  💬 06:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Good. Lymantria (talk) 07:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

		For good helping
		Thanks BubblySnow  💬 08:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Dear, @Lymantria: If you don't my can you tell me that where can I add request for my User page protection?. I need semi protection on my user page. Thanks BubblySnow  💬 11:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Why does it need protection? Id doesn't seem vanadalized. See Wikidata:Page protection policy. Lymantria (talk) 12:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Lymantria: ok got it no problem Thanks. BubblySnow  💬 12:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Greetings Lymantria. I'm a novice wikidata contributor but no stranger to the wiki concept. I'm also Eplack on Wikipedia and a frequent contributor over on the OpenStreetMap Wiki (and that project) as ElliottPlack. I see my user page was deleted in 2016. I don't remember creating it, honestly, but could it be restored? I'm no bot or spammer. Any edits I make would probably be OSM inspired, and often in an attempt to reduce spam there. Thanks! --Eplack (talk) 14:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Eplack: I checked your deleted user page. It contained only a URL to elliottplack/.me. I'm not sure if restoring that is a good idea. Lymantria (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

P.S. But you can recreate of course! Lymantria (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah, got it. Thanks! I should have given it more substance. I'll recreate it. I didn't do so already because I got a warning that the page had been deleted. Thanks for your help! --Eplack (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand why you deleted the page. It has 2 valid references as a creator of 2 programming languages. Also mentioned in a Wikipedia page and a Wikibooks. So my kind request to you please restore the page.

It has not. Wikipedia, famepedia and gyaanpedia (a parody!) are not valid sources. It might well be that this person is indeed creator of the programming language, still that does not make him sufficiently notable. Lymantria (talk) 06:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Looking at User:MisterSynergy/sysop/entrepreneurs there are an unusual high amount of Ghanaian entrepreneurs created by new similary named accounts. Is it worth filling a CU over? --Trade (talk) 11:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I think Wikidata:Requests for checkuser/Case/Alhaj Darajaati is worth investigating. Lymantria (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi,

It is my first property proposal and have no clue what is the usual way to deal with it and relative timings. I already asked User:Tobias1984 since his field of expertise was matching. I can remember you granted us bot access for our bot within the Wikidata:WikiProject_Chemistry/Natural_products project, so could you have a look at it?

It is now in https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Category:Properties_ready_for_creation with 6 supports and no objections.

Thank you very much in advance! AdrianoRutz (talk) 12:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done --Lymantria (talk) 11:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Wonderful! Thanks a lot! AdrianoRutz (talk) 14:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm6362104/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0 add imbd in wikidata --82.208.113.202 08:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done --Lymantria (talk) 08:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Dear @Lymantria: Valentin Sinitsyn wrote me by email (in ru.wiki my email address is available) he asked me to rename the Ehglish version of Valentin Y. Sinitsyn to «Valentin E. Sinitsyn», he also pointed on an English-language source where his name is written correctly: Interview with Prof. ValentinE. Sinitsyn (in English). Healthmanagement.org(January 2010), where his email (vsini@mail.ru) is indicated in the end of the article. Thanks -- Khurshed.yusufbekov (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

You can do that, no need to ask me! But I think the usual transliteration of Евгений into English is Yevgeni, see w:Wikipedia:Romanization of Russian. Lymantria (talk) 07:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I want to open a discussion but it seems I'm unable to do that, please what can I do or should I ask my questions here Gmhighplz (talk) 12:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

You can start here. Perhaps a good idea to study Wikidata:Notability first. Lymantria (talk) 12:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

If you google her name there are enough references online that meet number 2 of the notability policy. Gmhighplz (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Show it on Q105474132. Lymantria (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Alright, thank you Gmhighplz (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

You've removed https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q105682011 as not notable, but it does conform to notability policy:

I was adding two properties "menitoned in":

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_properties_pattern
• https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Automatic_transformation_of_XML_namespaces

So "It contains at least one valid sitelink to a page on Wikipedia, Wikivoyage, Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wikinews, Wikibooks, Wikidata, Wikispecies, Wikiversity, or Wikimedia Commons."

Please, restore.

BTW, you delete faster than I can add properties. Change your system to be able to add properties together with object creation. --VictorPorton (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

My apologies. I should have given some time. Lymantria (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

P.S. As the name of the item subject is very similar to your user name, it might be considered self promotion. Lymantria (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Is self-promotion disallowed? If yes, where in the rules? (Some moderators in Wikipedia follow their heart of removal instead of the rules. I hope, you don't.)

I am trying to add a Wikipedia link and the Publish button is inactive, Enter key also does nothing. --VictorPorton (talk) 21:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind, I misused the UI of the Wikidata site. --VictorPorton (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Self promotion is not forbidden, but makes users cautious. You misused the UI? What I see is that the enwikiversity link is not congruent with the subject. Lymantria (talk) 06:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I was unable to add a Wikipedia article. Later I understood how to do this. VictorPorton (talk) 06:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@VictorPorton: "a mathematician, software developer, religious person"? Are you even serious about that item? With such a sitelink? Within cswiki, we'd delete it right away as a non-encyclopaedic selfpromo. --GeXeS (talk) 06:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

You are going to delete an entry about an author of a 400 pages peer-reviewed research monograph in abstract mathematics and of a new kind of crypto app? Also delete Andrew Wiles. VictorPorton (talk) 07:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

"With such a sitelink"? Binding_properties_pattern is about a technology that I invented now used in all Linux PCs, at very least, as the main method to control how UI elements are connected. VictorPorton (talk) 07:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

You recently deleted several pages: Q105724161; Q105696518; Q105724618; and Q105725151 due to lack of notability. These were created for a cataloguing project I am doing for school. Would it be possible to restore them at least long enough for me to save the data I created elsewhere? Also, please advise on notability criteria. Thanks --ArchivalEmily (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I restored the items. You'll have to add some "serious and publicly available references" (see Wikidata:Notability. Let me know if you get stuck. Lymantria (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Popping to say I'm supporting this work. While some of the items will have "serious and publicly available references", other will be created because of a structural need in relation to other Wikidata items. Respectfully, please keep in mind the structural need portion of Wikidata notability. --Smallison (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, please ensure you are not deleting items before other users have time to finish contributions.--Smallison (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Smallison: Those items were there for some 20 hours before I deleted them and did not show structural need (yet). I try to fight vandalism and promotional items. Sometimes the line seems thin. For serious work, certainly for serious school projects (IRL I work in a school), I'm always a willing person. Lymantria (talk) 21:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Lymantria: Thanks. Very much appreciated.

Thank you Lymantria! (and Smallison) --ArchivalEmily (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello Lymantria Could you also change Isabelle de Charrière at the wrong spot at Hindi Wikipedia? https://hi.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%A6%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF:Dishita_Bhowmik/%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%AF%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%97%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%83%E0%A4%B7%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A0 Bij voorbaat dank. Boss-well63 (talk) 18:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The link to hiwiki you gave, seems to be a subpage of a user-page. Such pages should not be linked to wikidata. Lymantria (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Lymantria, when you delete a spam item could you please also nominate the item's picture on Wikimedia Commons for deletion as well? Assuming that you dosn't already do that, of course. --Trade (talk) 09:49, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm an commons-admin as well, so I can even delete if appropriate. Lymantria (talk) 09:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Could you please merge Wikidata:Requests for checkuser/Case/Aakashchandani18 into Wikidata:Requests for checkuser/Case/Marcyway4? --Trade (talk) 11:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that's a good idea. Lymantria (talk) 12:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Why not? Both Aakashchandani18 and Marcyway4 have re-created the same items. --Trade (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi there. I saw you've closed bot approval discussions recently, so I was wondering if you could look at Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/Openaccess cma. The discussion has lagged for a bit, but there have been no objection raised, and I made the one change suggested (though Multichill never returned to follow up, after I pinged him there and off-wiki). Would you consider giving a last call for comments and closing in the next few days if no one objects? Thanks! Dominic (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll anounce that I will approved soon. Lymantria (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Could you kindly take a look at BorkedBot and Nicereddybot as well? I've been waiting for them to start running. --Trade (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I will. Lymantria (talk) 06:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello,

Can you please let me know why the page for Travis was deleted? Notability criteria was met. The below page was recreated after the first page was deleted after being on Wikidata for months. There has been numerous press articles about Travis. In addition, Travis is a published researcher.

https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q105837081&action=edit&redlink=1

Thanks, Travis

For me a trigger to delete the item was the Google Scholar link. It clearly was not pointing to articles by Travis Guterman, but a couple of other authors with the name Travis. Some articles were written when the subject of the item was 2, 3 years old. Also the field of subject given (unified field theory) did not match the mostly medical titles. That clearly is a fabricated way to make Travis Guterman seem to be an important person, "a published researcher", but fake news, cheating. The other links offered (including a bachelor thesis) as sources certainly do not apply to make the subject notable in the sense of Wikidata:Notability. Lymantria (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Lymantria, you recently deleted Tyler Weitzman as not meeting the notability criteria. May I ask why you deleted it? The page met criterias 1 and 3 as it had a valid sitelink to s:Author:Tyler_Weitzman and it met a structural need for other pages including CloneBot, as well as several articles outside of Wikidata (on Wikiquotes, Wikisource 1, Wikisource 2, and Wikiversity) which hyperlinked to Tyler Weitzman, and now have broken URLs. DarrowStormBlessed (talk) 23:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The item did not meet criterium 1, as there is not valid site link at the item. It did not meet criterium 3, as there was only one incoming link from CloneBot, for which it was not making the item more useful (the other way around may have been the case). So I stand by my decision to delete. You may however write a request at Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard, to see if other admins support my decision. Lymantria (talk) 06:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response, I will take a look at doing so. I would also like to point out that while I agree that criterium 3 is quite subjective in this case, Subpart 5 of criterium 1 of the notability policy clearly states that author pages are valid links: "On Wikisource, items for mainspace pages, Author pages, Translation pages, and Portal pages are valid, along with items for namespaces that exist on other Wikimedia sites (Category, Project...) (Wikidata:Notability)" DarrowStormBlessed (talk) 09:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I overlooked the site link to enwikisource. My apologies. Restored. Lymantria (talk) 09:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Easy to overlook when it's further down :) cancelling the administrator's notice I was drafting. ThanksDarrowStormBlessed (talk) 09:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Lymantria, could you please restore Q105103969 as it satisfies a structural need (WD:N) for the identifier Wikidata:Property proposal/Verified Handles VHID.
To prove its existence there is a critique piece here and while it refers to the old revision/look of their database before VHID's it's still reffering to the same organisation. Many thanks. --Apurarazul (talk) 09:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done Restored. Lymantria (talk) 09:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

You have deleted this wikidata item(Q104822142) It was vandalised by someone and renamed to Yoyo Shafiq. Please restore it.

I have checked several older versions of the item, then on Zeyan Shafiq, but I couldn't find any meeting the notability criteria after deletion of an article on them at enwiki, especially I didn't find serious and reliable independent sources. Lymantria (talk) 06:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

It fulfills a structural need, for example: it is needed to make statements made in other items more useful. It meets this guideline. It will be usefull in Stalwart Esports wikidata item. Also Vice Source Dawn Source Indian Express Source These are few sources that are independent and reliable. There are many other's as well. Someone vandalised it to Yoyo Shafiq and that's why it was deleted. Kindly reinstate it. Thanks.

I restored the item, but please make the notability more apparent. Lymantria (talk) 13:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Lymantria, I can see that recently you deleted two of the wiki data pages created by me in the past, Q106103034, and Q105337099. Both the pages were fulfilling a structural need and notability criteria. Also, both pages have independent and reliable sources that make sure that person is real and notable. It would be my pleasure if you could help me to restore the pages. You can also check my Wiki Contribution history, I never spammed the directory. Awaiting your response.

I have reviewed again the items. In my opinion the subject mentioned do not qualify as being "described using serious and publicly available references", whereas the mentioned sources are not serious/independent (but content driven by the subject themselves, like interviews, own websites). You may disagree and look if other admins agree at Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard. Maybe a colleague of mine convinces me to change my decision. Lymantria (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear Lymantria, If you get a chance to look at the citations, kindly see that all of the mentioned websites are serious and notable big media houses (including Forbes, Hindustan Times and other) not a personal website. Let me know if you need anything else to prove the notability. I remain at your disposal.

You know what you can do. Lymantria (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC) P.S. An article in the English Wikipedia is another way.

Hi Lymantria, I can see that recently you deleted two of the wiki data pages created by me in the past, Q106103034, and Q105337099. Both the pages were fulfilling a structural need and notability criteria. Also, both pages have independent and reliable sources that make sure that person is real and notable. It would be my pleasure if you could help me to restore the pages. You can also check my Wiki Contribution history, I never spammed the directory. Awaiting your response.

I have reviewed again the items. In my opinion the subject mentioned do not qualify as being "described using serious and publicly available references", whereas the mentioned sources are not serious/independent (but content driven by the subject themselves, like interviews, own websites). You may disagree and look if other admins agree at Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard. Maybe a colleague of mine convinces me to change my decision. Lymantria (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear Lymantria, If you get a chance to look at the citations, kindly see that all of the mentioned websites are serious and notable big media houses (including Forbes, Hindustan Times and other) not a personal website. Let me know if you need anything else to prove the notability. I remain at your disposal.

You know what you can do. Lymantria (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC) P.S. An article in the English Wikipedia is another way.

Why do you see a structural need by the object Oliver Smith (Q102205036)? Isn't the property author name string (P2093) intended for just such a case. By the third author of the article Youth mental health competencies in regional general practice (Q102205039) it is also done by means of this property, why not by this author too? --Gymnicus (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The source of Youth mental health competencies in regional general practice (Q102205039) includes the ORCID of Oliver Smith (Q102205036), not of the third author. Lymantria (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

However, the ORCID link is empty. Therefore, from my point of view, the data object does not meet the first point of the relevance criteria and, as I said, I do not see the structural necessity. --Gymnicus (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I disagree, as there may be a second publication by this author, and this item helps them be connected. Lymantria (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Where do you see the other publications? When I look at the only link in the data object, I don't see much more than the name. The ID does not even prove that the person in question is male. --Gymnicus (talk) 17:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, what I see is that in Youth mental health competencies in regional general practice (Q102205039) there is an ORCID connected to this author. Connecting that in our data makes Youth mental health competencies in regional general practice (Q102205039) more useful, although indeed the ORCID link itself does not show any more public data (it is not known if there is private data). There may be (possibly in the futere) a publication by the same author, that second publication may be connected to the same author, which would not be possible if we had not stored the ORCID. The term necessity is by the way not used in WD:N. Lymantria (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC) P.S. Gender of an author is not utterly important IMHO.

Your justification for the structural benefit is purely hypothetical at the moment. You write about “may be” yourself. If it can be, then it can't be either. If you think that way, then you actually don't have to delete a data object because the person, the company or whatever is described in the data object could still be relevant. In WD:N it is written that a structural benefit can be that another object is better described by means of the object. This can be clearly denied here, because, as already mentioned, only the name is actually noted in the data object. I have exactly the same when I use author name string (P2093). – The word may not be on the side, but indirect is already included. Because for an object to become relevant, it is necessary that the object meets one of the three points of the Wikidata relevance criteria. – You are absolutely right that the gender does not matter. Nevertheless, it is specified in the object without a receipt, which is why it should actually be deleted. --Gymnicus (talk) 10:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

You made your point, I disagree. I think structured data is also being prepared on future additions. Lymantria (talk) 10:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I'll put this up for discussion on Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard --Gymnicus (talk) 17:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

As you wish. Thanks for informing me. Lymantria (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I can see that recently you deleted two of the wiki data pages created by me in the past, Q106361612, and Q106361612. Both the pages were fulfilling a structural need and notability criteria. Also, both pages have independent and reliable sources that make sure that person is real and notable.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by MRCKH (talk • contribs).

Those items did not show any notability. Most of the identifiers were social media, nowhere was a serious and independent (from the item subject) source. These clearly did not comply with our notability criteria. I will not restore the items, you can of course try Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard for a second opinion. Lymantria (talk) 13:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC) P.S. What use would restoration have been, now you have recreated items on the same subjects again?? I have deleted those again, but this is close to vandalism.