Jared Preston

Hi! If you want to join Wikidata:WikiProject Tennis, welcome! --Stryn (talk) 20:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Why you change Russian names from "<First name> <Last name>" to "<Last name>, <First name>"? Nobody (except you) wants to see labels in this format. --putnik 00:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

They should actually be easier to find in this format because of their Wikipedia titles, and, I guess it's OK if at least one or the other is an alias. It's the usual Russian naming format with Last Name, First Name and patronymic. But yes, it's quite formal. Jared Preston (talk) 00:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

In order to simplify the search, there are aliases. And it's not ok. We use labels in Russian Wikipedia and want to see more normal names wherever possible. The order of names in the titles of articles is historical legacy of paper encyclopedias. It has absolutely nothing to do with what should be the labels in Wikidata. --putnik 01:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

The majority of the Russian labels are in the Last Name, First Name format. Do you know if something is being done for the import of new items? Jared Preston (talk) 01:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

The labels of the new elements are taken from the title of Wikipedia articles. This is the only reason why they are in this format. I do not know if anyone is doing something to fix import of new elements, but I do know that the existing elements actively corrected. --putnik 01:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

It's a shame nothing is written at Help:Label/ru, and at Help talk:Label/ru there isn't much agreement either. Was/Is there discussion elsewhere? Jared Preston (talk) 01:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

That discussion was before Wikidata began to use actively in Wikipedia. The standard format of names in the infoboxes are <first name> [middle name] <last name>. If you want, you can start a new discussion on the Russian forum. --putnik 01:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Following your advice, I have now started a new thread at Wikidata:Форум#Naming format for labels and it'd be great if our colleagues would chip in with their ideas! Thanks to you too! Jared Preston (talk) 01:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

English | español | français | العربية | Nederlands | русский | +/−

Jared Preston, congratulations! You now have the rights of administrator on Wikidata. Please take a moment to read the Wikidata:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Wikidata:Project chat, Wikidata:Requests for comment, and Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings, or modifications of protected pages.

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikidata-admin @ irc.freenode.net. If you need access, you can flag someone down at @ irc.freenode.net. You may find Wikidata:Guide to Adminship to be useful reading. You may also want to consider adding yourself to meta:Template:Wikidata/Ambassadors, and to any similar page on your home wiki if one exists. (Check Wikipedia:Wikidata/Wikidatans (Q14964498).)

Please also add/update the languages you speak to your listing at Wikidata:List of administrators. You may also like to add your username to this list if you would not like that items you delete at RfD get marked as deleted automatically. Again, welcome to the admin corps!

Please accept my congratulations.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks, Ymblanter! And a big thank you too, to all of those who voted at my RfA! If any user needs a hand or a word of advice, or just wants a second opinion on any matter whatsoever, please ask me here for help. Jared Preston (talk) 14:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

And congratulations from me! If you ever find yourself bored, like me you can patrol recent changes and type in either "adding language as label/description/alias" or "possible vandalism" in the "Tag filter" field. Use the tools wisely!   --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 14:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

You can also delete items from User:Pasleim/Items for deletion as well. :P Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 14:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jared Preston,

First of all, congratulations with becoming an administrator! It's not really a big deal but it can be useful at times. But let me come to business. I see that one of your activities concerns the sport of tennis. Now I would like to point out to you to some things that could be still be done regarding tennis tournaments at Wikidata, because it might be of interest to you.

There is a project called User:Ivan A. Krestinin/To merge that seeks patterns in all Wikipedia article and category titles and suggests possible mergers. On several of those lists (they are split by language) some tennis tournaments keep coming up. Several of these are false positives caused by tennis tournaments changing their names and formats. For example: several tennis tournaments have had editions that featured both ATP and WTA events, while other editions had only ATP or only WTA events. This would not have been such a problem if it was not for different language Wikipedia versions to handle such things differently.

French and Dutch usually have separate articles for the men's (ATP) event and the women's (WTA) event and no parent article for the whole tournament. For example: 2007 AIG Japan Open Tennis Championships (Q737621) (pages in English, German, Italian, and Russian) which has parts 2007 AIG Japan Open Tennis Championships – Women (Q3354005) (pages in German, French, and Polish) and 2007 AIG Japan Open Tennis Championships – Men (Q18533548) (pages in Dutch, French, and Polish) and some languages go even further and have separate articles for each event (singles or doubles) 2007 AIG Japan Open Tennis Championships – men's singles (Q3807265) (pages in English, Italian, and Russian). And here we encounter another problem, quite often pages of tennis tournaments in different languages are linked to each other, while they do not exactly describe the same tournament or at least not the same subset of events played in that tournament. Some of these might be discovered with the lists by Ivan A. Krestinin mentioned above and I already changed quite some, like the 2007 Japan Open here.

Some of this might be new to you, some of this might be known. Maybe take a look at User:FakirNL/Tennis to see a copy of some Merge-dumps with only the tennis tournaments selected. I sincerely hope you are interested in taking on this task, but if you are not, no problem. If you are, please take a look around and if you have any questions, just ask! - FakirNL (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Jared Preston,

I was prety sure I added it to Q1995526, But it seems I didn't andI cant. I just dont get an "add" buton if I try to edit. Is ther any trick?

Thanks, --Fano (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Done. I managed it fine. Jared Preston (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hey, regarding your current autoeditlists, I think that Estonian "Saksamaa naistennisist" would be better as "Saksamaa tennisist" without a woman prefix. :) --Stryn (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

OK, I'd change it too, if I could only get it to work. They don't work, I can't get them to load. So do you think you could help me or point me to what I'm doing wrong or what else I need to do to activate them? Jared Preston (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for very politely correcting a stupid mistake of mine, and cleaning up after me! I was trying to put Q193842 in Q4006. HLHJ (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Could you please provide a source for your claim that sv:esplanad and en:esplanade refer to the same thing? /80.78.215.167 09:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Neither the item's descriptions nor my talk page are the right venues for such a discussion. Jared Preston (talk) 09:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Then please direct me to such a place and I won't bother you any more. This esplanade/esplanad misunderstanding is a most annoying thing. /80.78.215.167 09:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Admittedly, I've never used it before, I would however try Wikidata:Interwiki conflicts, if I was unable to resolve the problem myself. Jared Preston (talk) 09:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Already tried that. It didn't work. I suppose noone with the proper rights was interested in the issue, or it was the wrong place to call for attention. While the centralised interwiki link administration is neat it is also more difficult to edit for a regular user. In the old system you could always outsmart the interwiki bots if you were fast enough. Thanks, anyway. /80.78.215.167 09:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've sent an email to you. Can you please check? --Csigabi (talk) 14:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hey! Just wondering, might it be worth dropping a message to User:Marc_Winans as you deleted so may of their items and they clearly don't know what does and does not belong on Wikidata? Mainly Q19258356, Q19258342 and Q19258319. ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 17:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

User:Yangsean_Lcr_Naga could probably do with a similar messages regarding Q19360094, Q19360119 and Q19360156 ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 14:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Thank you very much for your notes. Could you be so nice and help me with merging with Merge Wizard gadget? I really have no idea how to use this :( I understood, that manual merges is also ok, that`s why I do this that way. Regards! AldraW (talk) 10:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I think that I did it :) And I hope this is it (https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q1277165&action=history). Thank you once more. Regards AldraW (talk) 11:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

First of all you'd go to "Preferences", click on the tab "Gadgets", and activate "Merge: This script adds a tool for merging items" (it's the very first checkbox), click save at the bottom of the page, load the two pages to be merged and copy the Qid of the item to be merged to. Then, at the top of the page of the item to be merged from, to the left hand side of the search bar there's a drop-down box (at least for me) titled "More" and click "Merge with..." The Merge Wizard should then open with the appropriate instructions, so that all you have to do is add the number of the item and click "Merge". If you use this tool, a redirect will be automatically created, and you will no longer need to post the items at Wikidata:Requests for deletions. They won't be deleted anyway as a result of this Request for Comment. (edit conflict) – Yes, you did it! At the same moment as I was writing this! Well done! Jared Preston (talk) 11:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Twice you've reverted my edits. I'm just trying to improve wikipedia. The logic of my edits should be obvious: they mean the same thing.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 31.55.82.13 (talk • contribs).

Then welcome to Wikidata! Wikidata works differently to Wikipedia. The logic of my edits should be obvious too, Q82799 is the "name"-item, and "Q14558272" a disambiguation page. Two different concepts! Maybe a similar example would be the difference between police force (Q35535) and Police (Q223925). A disambiguation page is, by definition, disambiguous, and thus should not be linked to such a headword. Jared Preston (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Do you know the difference between references and qualifiers? I'm wondering because of this edit. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 08:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Not always. What should I have done? Jared Preston (talk) 08:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

It should be a reference instead of a qualifier. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 09:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hahahaha, oh my.... Yes, OK, in this instance I do know the difference. It got a bit late last night and I obviously miss-clicked. So thanks for noticing that mistake, which is now fixed! Jared Preston (talk) 09:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Jared Preston. Will you please protect Q1005992? As advised in an earlier dispute, I do not want to interfere. --Csigabi (talk) 09:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks to Sjoerd for this one. Jared Preston (talk) 21:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Здраствуйте увж. Jared Preston, по вашему, мой вклад дает право иметь флаг откатывающего и если да, то попрoшу присвоить мне флаг. Я больше года имею флаг откатывающего в русской Википедии [1] и около 1,5 года autopatroller здесь [2]--6AND5 (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't think you need rollback rights at the moment. Jared Preston (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello

Excuse my poor english, but

Naissance dans... (same as italian and galego) is the same thing that

People from... (same as norse, svedige, and so on.) Look for instance at the categories in en:Hitoshi Igarashi & fr:Hitoshi Igarashi (these are the articles I was coming from).

Thus Q7113951 & Q7924646 have much the same content.

The only difference (and the one reason why there is 2 items) seems to be the russian language : Родившиеся в префектуре Ниигата and Персоналии:Префектура Ниигата. The first one is something like Birth in Niigata prefecture, the other is People of the Niigata prefecture (it doesn't mean they're born there).

It seems logical to have all the births in the same item. Choose the one where you want to put them  

Regards --Chaoborus (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

(edit) I see it seems to be the same problem elsewhere... That's very strange. Looks like Wikidata is creating two groups of interwikis languages on this topic... --Chaoborus (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Fist I want to thank you for helping with the description of the CometVisu data object!

But I've seen that you removed at the same time the link to the entry in the English wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:CometVisu) - was that on purpose (why?) or just a mistake? Mekzholan (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Mekzholan: Drafts are not articles. Wikidata doesn't link to drafts; on enwiki they are in a whole different namespace. Jared Preston (talk) 12:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Well, I knew about it, but I didn't know it turned in such a strict guideline. I'll observe it, but to be completely honest I'm not in favour of it - especially when it comes to items related to user categories/templates (such as those you may find in my deleted contributions). --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 11:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it's such a bad idea, although I did have the same reservations as you at the time. All-in-all, however, it's a whole lot easier for everyone. Non-admins can also redirect items after merging so it means RfD no longer gets too backlogged. Jared Preston (talk) 12:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. You suggested that Q19826381 be deleted. Can you suggest a better approach for ensuring that new users, when they search on the error message "Specific user page spam", receive helpful feedback? --DouglasReay (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Is such a deletion really necessary? If the entities are kept, then the subtemplates will have correct inter-language links (instantly available), while after the deletion one would have to go to the main template, use the inter-language link, and seek the sub-page. Besides this being a bit time-consuming, what if the subpage doesn't have the exact same path? -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

We must be talking about Q14402191. I've restored it; maybe needs more discussion. @Cycn: I don't think all of the subtemplates you've nominated for deletion fail the notability criteria. Template documentation pages yes, but mere sub-templates...? Jared Preston (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

If so, feel free to reject the nominations and please clarify the notability criteria. I don't knowc exactly how subtemplates would more useful than documentation templates, but I may be wrong on this. - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 15:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

At Wikidata:Notability we have "If a link is a subpage of a template, the item must contain at least two such sitelinks, and any of them must not be one of /doc, /sandbox, /testcases or /TemplateData subpages." a subpage could also be a sub-template, couldn't it? Jared Preston (talk) 15:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

You're right... Should /examples be added there? - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 06:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Of course they could... Jared Preston (talk) 07:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

(Actually, i was talking about Q7649148, but your example works just as well.) As for the why would a subtemplate be more useful than documentation templates, i don't really think they would. If it were up to me, i'd keep the docs too, for the same rationale as in my opening paragraph above. (though they really should not be anywhere other than at "/doc"; maybe this was the reason why docs aren't given the same status?) -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

At Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/2015/05/06#Bulk deletion request you declined to delete 3 of the items in question.

Those items are only self-referential among themselves and were added out of self interest(see [3]).

I would request you take a second look at deletion of them. --Izno (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Q19842482 also appears to be not notable. --Izno (talk) 13:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Lastly, I'm starting a discussion on WD:N at WD:N#Criterion 3 needs tightening. --Izno (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it would be appropriate to delete those three items right now before the discussion has really started, although I am well aware of the points you raised and am fully in agreement with you. There are other discussions going on right at this very moment about notability at other venues, so I don't know what to suggest here right now, but in regards to those three items that I chose not to delete, for the technical reasons that you are aware of and understanding about, I obviously would not have had a problem had some other admin deleted them – however, after standing there for a week, I thought it was high time for it to be archived. Theoretically, nothing would stop you or anyone else from nominating those items again, but I think, given time, we at Wikidata will have better policies regarding matters just like this. Just give it some time. Thanks for your help and carry on with the good work! Jared Preston (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hey there, I recently created a human item, and today it was deemed not notable and deleted. I spoke with some people in the #wikidata irc channel and was advised that it was a "borderline case" and that I should get in touch with the admin to ask if there was any way to improve the item.

Just for context, I have no vested interest in the creation of this item, I created it purely in the interests of linked data, and as an exercise in using Wikidata. I recently created an entry in the MusicBrainz database in which this person is credited, and thought that the person seemed to be notable enough to warrant a wikidata entry, which would allow me to add richer data than the music focused MusicBrainz.

I attempted to follow best practices and included references for each property I added, and was in the process of adding more statements when it was deleted.

Regarding notability, a search on Google News returns numerous articles in various publications (including the Telegraph and the Financial Times) quoting this person:

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22malcolm+kerr%22+ey&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ei=F8xPVZDRNse07Abs04CADg&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22malcolm+kerr%22+ernst+%26+young&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ei=kMxPVe6PF-Xd7gaixICwCw&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ

http://search.ft.com/search?q=%26quot%3Bmalcolm+kerr%26quot%3B&mq=%22malcolm+kerr%22

Totally understand if you still don't think a wikidata item should exist for this person, just wanted to reach out and see if your view might change given more information, or whether there was anything I could do to get it in line with the notability rules.

Cheers! --Johtso (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Johtso: I don't have any strong feelings either way regarding this chap. If you think he's notable, then create some more statements. I will restore the item for you. Jared Preston (talk) 07:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello, what's the problem with CBL being a "femme" ? --Pierrette13 (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello hello, and what's the problem with Herman being spelled with only on 'n' ? https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Nunberg... --Pierrette13 (talk) 15:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Pierrette13: there's nothing wrong with someone being a "woman", only we use "human (Q5)" for "instance of (P31)", and "female (Q6581072)" is for "sex or gender (P21)". As for Mr. Nunberg, you can spell his name how you like on the French Wikipedia. Jared Preston (talk) 14:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello, thank you for your answer, enjoy your afternoon, --Pierrette13 (talk) 14:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

About Herman, who flew from Vienna to America in the '30 : I should think that he spelled his name with only one 'n' when he became American, so the English-American Wikidata should probably write his name with one 'n'... Both versions are usually shown. Kind regards, --Pierrette13 (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Feel free to bring that up on the appropriate talkpage. Jared Preston (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi!! Yestarday you reverted all my edits in wikidata about asturian "concejos". In Asturias we don't have municipalitys, we have concejos, (the name of the municipalitys here) it's the same so I think that with concejos it's enough. Moreover if you enter in concejos of Asturias the page it's already included in municipalities of Spain. Regards!! --Gamonéu (talk) 11:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Asturias belongs to Spain, so I still don't see why municipality of Spain (Q2074737) should be deleted from those instances. Jared Preston (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

It's easy, in Asturias we don't have municipalitys, so you're inventing the word and Wikipedia is not a primary source. We have concejos that it's the correct term and already exists in wikidata linked to municipalitys of Spain. Also adding municipalitys of Spain in spanish wiki the infobox of asturian concejos appears with the information duplicated. I still don't see where is your problem!! --Gamonéu (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, why did you revert my edit? Names of folks are written capitalized in Czech. --Auvajs (talk) 15:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

They are? I've never seen that before. Then just undo my revert. Jared Preston (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, they are. Please don't edit items in languages you have little or no knowledge of. Thanks. --Auvajs (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Auvajs: So, to go back to the original edits: for a start, at the time you were a brand new user with less than 5 edits, I'm patrolling recent changes and see you change lower case to upper case (so somebody else had already made the same "mistake" as me in the beginning), I revert (with the knowledge that at least languages in Czech, Slovak and the like are not written with a leading capital letter), you explain to me that this was a misunderstanding, so what's the big deal? Where's your problem? Now you've added Babel boxes to show that your native language is Czech, I've already accepted that you should know better than I. So many new users to Wikidata change lower case letters to capitals, I simply didn't know better in this instance. I've never claimed otherwise. Jared Preston (talk) 19:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I really didn't mean to outrage or offend you. Please accept my apology if you understand my message in that way. As to what I meant: I may be new to Wikidata but I'm not entirely new to the wikiworld. When evaluating new users, maybe have a look at the "Global account information" to see users background. In my case you would have found that I have more than 6000 edits to the Czech Wiktionary so there's quite some probability I do speak Czech. As to folk names - I believe they are proper nouns in most languages so they would be mostly spelled capitalized. Have a nice day and thank you for your admin work (I mean it :) Greets from "the heart of Europe" :-) --Auvajs (talk) 20:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Apology accepted :) and for the record, I usually do, time permitting, take a glance at the global account information, especially when considering a block. In your case, I didn't (nor was it necessary or relevant), but now I have, may I ask why you were blocked indefinitely on Czech Wikisource (Q16735590) last week? Seems a bit drastic to me, but feel free not to answer this question if you don't want to. Proper nouns are spelled with a capital letter in many languages, but not always. In our example, a folk or ethnic group would not be written in upper case in Russian, French, Italian or Swedish, to name just a couple of examples. Languages are a great interest of mine, I'm not fluent in as many as I would like to be, but at the end of the day, nobody is perfect and we all live and learn. I hope you too will soon have 6,000 edits on Wikidata, and for the future – if there's anything I can do to be of help, just let me know. Jared Preston (talk) 08:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

The block is for posing a question on the local village pump whether there are any admin rules or admin election archive on the site (my edit is mostly understendable on google translate so you can verify). Yes I'm serious, this is all I did on the site (apart from some typo corrections, pointing out a page name may be misspelled (which was proven) and pointing out there were two pages with the same content (which was also proven and one page was removed). So the block was basically because the site admins dread me - I managed to initialize a desysop of one of them on Czech Wiktionary (he was long time misusing admin rights and gave a very disputable indef block to a user he's known to be in longtime conflict with) and strive to do the same on the second admin (who does even worse). I was blocked by another commrade of theirs but as you can see since the other admins don't unblock me, they are happy to have me banned. One of the site admins left trace on Wikidata too: see Wikidata:Administrators/Confirm_2013/4#Danny B. (talk • contribs • logs). --Auvajs (talk) 10:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

It certainly seems a bit draconian to me. Whatever his beef is against you, it appears that an indefinite block is somewhat unjust. Jared Preston (talk) 13:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Somewhat unjust is too much of an euphemism. It's a clear misuse of adminship and break of the founding principles. I'll start a RfC on Meta in couple of days if they don't unblock me. --Auvajs (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I talked with a Czech friend of mine and asked him about capitalization. He said that in Czech language the names of folks, whether it is used as an adjective (i.e. a German person) or as a name of a group of people (the Germans) are written with small letters. Csigabi (talk) 07:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Csigabi. In Czech language adjectives of folks/properties pertaining to their countries etc. are written with small letters (see wikt:německý) ; nouns of folks are considered proper names are written capitalized (see wikt:Němec, wikt:Němka). --Auvajs (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jared Preston, you reverted my entry at https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q107605&diff=prev&oldid=198857729

how can i get wikimedia commons to display interwiki links without a wikidata item? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Thomas_Drechsel

yours, --Pandarine (talk) 08:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

What else can I say? That's a problem for Commons, but not for Wikidata. It has already been decided on Commons, too, by the way, that only categories should be linked to items here about categories. Otherwise such an item should be linked to a Commons gallery (compare Commons category (P373) and Commons gallery (P935)). Jared Preston (talk) 20:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jared, can you help us with this? Thanks a lot! --Auvajs (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ohhh, I'm afraid I don't understand the terminology at all! Jared Preston (talk) 20:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I see you're fixing a lot of new items. Great! New users make a lot of mess, consuming time we could use to expand items You only forgot to mark them as patrolled afterwards. Can you do me a favor by patrolling items after you've corrected them? Thanks. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 12:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hey Sjoerd, in fact I usually do. Maybe I missed a couple, in which case please accept my apologies! Jared Preston (talk) 12:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

... for this. I was searching for the merge button, but unfortunately there is no such thing for IPs. Yours, --149.154.151.21 17:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. Try Special:MergeItems. Jared Preston (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

As an individual born and raised in England, and capped over 100 times by the English national team, I think it is fair to say Frank Lampard should be considered an English national? Mattythewhite (talk) 10:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Mattythewhite: country of citizenship (P27): United Kingdom (Q145). Frank Lampard (Q41533) already has the claim member of sports team (P54): England men's national association football team (Q47762). You can't have "England" as a country of citizenship, he is a British citizen. See w:British nationality law. Jared Preston (talk) 11:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

But one can be regarded an English national, and country of citizenship (P27) allows for the inclusion of nationality, as per the "Also known as" section. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Maybe in sporting terms, but not officially. By all means add country for sport (P1532) with England if you like, but not for country of citizenship (P27), I totally disagree. Jared Preston (talk) 12:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

You deleted Q19822246, however I decided to keep it, because of an incoming link from Q19947423. Could you either undelete Q19822246 or delete the link from Q19947423? Mbch331 (talk) 09:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I completely missed that one, thanks mate! Seeing as that would make the item notable, I've turned it back to blue. Jared Preston (talk) 09:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

They way the links were presented doesn't show the number of incoming links. So that needs to be checked manually. I almost forgot to check it myself, just remembered in time. Mbch331 (talk) 09:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hallo, warum hast du hier [4] meine Änderung rückgängig gemacht? --178.191.237.185 15:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Weil der Link Reichsgau Niederdonau aktuell "nur" eine Weiterleitung auf Geschichte Niederösterreichs (Q1516551) darstellt. Laut Help:Sitelinks: "Sitelinks are for linking items to standalone pages that already exist on Wikimedia sites." Eine Weiterleitung ist keine "standalone page". Jared Preston (talk) 08:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Danke. Wie löse ich das in/für Wikipedia/Wikidata? Soll ich Special:RedirectEntity verwenden oder {{Wikidata-Weiterleitung|Q7309915}} in Reichsgau Niederdonau einbauen? Oder diesen Fall bei Wikidata:Interwiki conflicts melden? --178.190.92.205 11:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Am Besten schreibst du einen eigenständigen Artikel in der deutschen Wikipedia für Reichsgau Niederdonau. Der Abschnitt in der schon bestehenden "Geschichte Niederösterreichs" wäre dann eine Zusammenfassung des von dir neu erstellten Artikels. Zum Verweisen setzt man einfach Template:Main (Q6797933) (Vorlage:Hauptartikel) ein... Jared Preston (talk) 18:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ich habe den Artikel Johann Georg Hiedler angelegt, weil er in vielen anderen Sprachen vorhanden war. Ergebnis: Löschantrag, weil der Inhalt schon im Artikel Hitler (Familie) dargestellt ist. Danke für deine Hilfe! --91.113.56.196 10:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Das ist ein Problem der deutschen Wikipedia, nicht bei uns hier. Siehe einfach das dazugehörige Logbuch. Da fällt sofort auf, dass man hier wenig Glück beim Erstellen eines neuen Artikels mit dem Lemma haben wird. Jared Preston (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, can I ask why you reverted my edits of Q1097066 and Q20743915? My changes are quite obvious.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.67.51.180 (talk • contribs).

Hello 89.67.51.180, you forgot to sign your post. Yes, your changes were obvious. I can only refer you to Wikidata:WikiProject Names: "if an article listed in the interwikis spells the name differently than the label of the item: create a new item for this variant..." Your edits were reverted because of the spelling variants of "Xenia" and "Ksenia". Jared Preston (talk) 18:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for not signing, didn't know it's possible and needed. I don't know if I understand you correctly, you say that diffrent spelling should have diffrent links (and articles not connected in wikipedia) even when they are same name, but in diffrent language? Then why in Q1097066 there are links to bg, hu, ru, su, uk with diffrent spelling? In polish wikipedia there is quite big article about interwiki pl:Pomoc:Interwiki (bigger than en), and there is written that such cases shoud be merged. 89.67.51.180 01:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

For normal items they need to be merged, however for names they don't. The reason bg,ru and uk are accepted is that they don't use the Roman alphabet (if the transliteration can be spelled like the label, they are accepted, otherwise they need a separate article too). The reason hu and sk are accepted is that the only difference is the accent. The labels used for those 2 languages is without accent. The label of the Polish item would be Ksenia, which isn't the same as Xenia. Therefor it needs a separate item. And what Polish Wikipedia says about when to merge is only valid when it agrees with the rules and practices on Wikidata. Mbch331 (talk) 06:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I understand. But if right what you say, in my opinion this should be merged too. Why? In polish alphabet and language there is no x letter, so basicly Ksenia is polish version of Xenia in the samy way that those in non-roman alphabet, becasue this is transliteration of lacking of x letter. Even more, in en:Xenia_(name) there is reference to this name written as Ksenia and polish language, so why there can't be link to polish version of this article in Language section?89.67.51.180 10:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

The Polish alphabet is a Roman alphabet even if they don't use all the same letters. It's not the difference between an accent or not. There is no transliteration for Polish. Ksenia is always written that way in Polish. I btw just moved RU en UK, because they transliterate to Ksenia and not Xenia. Mbch331 (talk) 10:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Oh, ok. It's... complicated now. I thought wiki should be simple and clean, but if you say it has to be this way, so be it. 89.67.51.180 13:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

A given name isn't the same if written differently, simple as. So it's totally the opposite of being complicated. Xénia (with the accent) should also have its own item. We mustn't forget that a lot of items have misleading interwiki links because a lot have been imported, this project is still in it's beginning phase... Jared Preston (talk) 13:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hallo, Jared. You mass-reverted a series of corrections I'd made to "Macau" (Q14773). Macau, is not a sister city of Hong Kong, Luanda (Angola), Rio de Janeiro, or any of the other city statements I removed.

Normally, if an edit of mine is reverted on any Wikimedia project I'll just ask what was the concern they had or ask them to please take another look. After all, mistakes happen.

However, I see above that your reverts are... a recurring topic. In one thread, you refer to someone's edit count seemingly as a partial reason for a revert. As well, for better or worse, while administrators are as human as the next editor, the admin right carries a certain expectation of good judgement.

Jared, whether an editor is new or old, registered or unregistered, none are second class citizens, nor is an edit less "worthy" or somehow a candidate for removal due to arbitrary attributes of the editor who made it. Here especially, low edit count means little—many experienced Wikipedia editors have few or no Wikidata edits.

If you had checked cross-wiki contribs you would have seen me correcting the information and adding a source (the Macau government (iacm.gov.mo/e/gemin/list/) on en-wp or referencing one in the edit summary, on the Italian wp, on the French wp, and Urdu wp. All corrections stayed.

Even if I had not made those edits before the Wikidata ones though, the statements you restored were completely unreferenced (besides being wrong). But you added them back. You didn't contact me about the reverts either.

Please, do not do this. –84.92.129.87 13:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

That is the problem with not being able to give an edit summary, especially when removing statements en masse. As sister cities, they seemed plausible, and despite my rights as an administrator, I was dealing with what I thought was vandalism at the time (any editor can undo what they feel is vandalism). What you say about anonymous editors is correct, but how can I guess you are using a static IP address when you have (had) no previous history of editing Wikidata? I do look at a lot of x-wiki contributions when I am not 100% sure, but can't be expected to do so in 100% of vandalism cases; so, nonetheless, just as much as you disliked having your edits reverted, I dislike even the mere suggestion that I was acting in anything other than good faith. I was wrong. I made a mistake for which I am sorry. Jared Preston (talk) 14:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I 100% agree with the edit summary point. I read the FAQ point that they're unavailable (except for reversions); still, I'm sure there're reasons it was designed how it was. Incidentally, I'm not using a static IP address. :-) It's dynamic. I hadn't thought you weren't acting in good faith per se, rather, being completely honest, that unregistered and/or low edit count may've factored into the reverts. Anyhow apology accepted of course. Thanks –84.92.129.87 15:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I was about to link Department of Chinese Literature, National Cheng Kung University (Q20962490) to National Cheng Kung University (Q706708), when you deleted the item. It's a faculty of the university.

In my opinion that would make it notable. Mbch331 (talk) 07:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Oh sorry there mate. Good stuff. Feel free to carry on (and undelete it). My apologies for getting in the way! Jared Preston (talk) 07:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

I want to download the Gadget export so I can update labels on items. I need help. I clicked download but I'm still missing something. Kkjj (talk) 12:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

You would need to import the script through your User:Kkjj/common.js page. However, seeing that you are so new to Wikidata, I suggest you get at least a few hundred edits under your belt first before worrying about labels in other languages. Jared Preston (talk) 12:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

How do I import the script? Kkjj (talk) 13:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello, as you can see, this should be renamed Category:Nazi Party members and the current Category:Nazi Party members should be renamed Category:German Nazi politicians. It is all screwed up and I am trying to fix it. - TX6785 (talk) 17:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

How should we remedy this problem? - TX6785 (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Well we have Category:Nazi Party politicians (Q3919930) and Category:Nazi Party members (Q21030252) and yes, it does seem a bit screwed up. I'm not so sure right now where to start, so, maybe the creator of the latter, AmaryllisGardener, can help? Jared Preston (talk) 18:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

I didn't come up with the system on enwiki, but I guess it's saying that the latter cat can be directly included in articles about members that weren't politicians, and the politicians cat is for articles about members that were politicians, hence the former cat being in the latter cat as a subcat? I don't see a problem. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 18:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

I understand what you were going for Amaryllis. The problem was in the fact that the articles in various languages were connected to the wrong Wikidata links. Most of the problems were caused by the person who created the German Nazi politicians category, not you. I have done some translation work and have remedied the problems. - TX6785 (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

I will also be populating the English wiki category now. - TX6785 (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

What is the rubbish sprouted by Mbch331 that links to spam articles cannot be deleted? JR spam should be deleted promptly before he adds to it. I put it to you that the notability and the deletion policy indicate that spam should not be linked from here, and that accordingly it should be delinked, and nominated for speedy deletion. Having it hang around here while some wiki deliberates on repeat spam of JR is nonsensical.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

You're quite right, billinghurst, but mbch331 is correct too. What I have done previously in JR cases was to add the item to my watchlist and wait for the local admins to delete the articles, and then, upon reaching emptiness again, to delete the item here. Technically, someone else would be within their rights to create an item again even if there's only one valid sitelink. What I have also done, when there has been various links, is to protect the item from further anonymous editing, therefore not allowing him to link the articles directly. If they are linked, however, it should be easier for us to coordinate deleting them across the sister projects. I can see both sides of the coin, I just wish we didn't have to toss it. Mbch331 is on our side; JR has already wasted enough of our time. I wish he'd just go away. Jared Preston (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

So you have created an operating process that is contrary to your policy. These are clear spam articles, and clearly outside of notability; the latest lot was hoax articles. Please show me the policy that says that links cannot be removed from spam articles, and articles deleted, as that will be something that should be tested by the community. not a flawed operating process.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Why are you reverting my edits? It is absolutely useless to link Commons categories to categories in Wikipedia, they should be linked to the proper article about the subject in question, otherwise the information would be useless. Or am I missing something here? --Darwinius (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

There are and have been numerous discussions at different venues around Wikidata about how to link Commons categories to articles and categories in Wikipedia. Had the items from which you removed the Commons categories otherwise been empty, I would have left your edits, but since they aren't – leaving the otherwise valid sitelink pt:Categoria:Sé (Lisboa) in Q9135035 for example, I reverted. Tell me why the Portuguese category shouldn't be linked to the corresponding Commons one? That makes even less sense! Jared Preston (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ahh, I see... I messed up with one of those things while trying to remove the link to the Wikipedia category and replacing it to the link to the article, it was only once and must have been that one. After that I learned how to remove them correctly without messing up with the original thing. I apologize if I destroyed something, I just wanted to link the interwiki links on those former parishes of Lisbon to the articles, so that it would be easy to check what happened to them. Actually, they should be empty in Wikipedia as well, as they are defunct parishes, not in use anymore. I still don't see why Commons categories would have to match Wikipedia categories, it doesn't make any sense to me, I believe it's extremely rare the situation where we would like to check the Wikipedia category instead of the related article. The oposite is also true, Wikipedia articles link to Commons categories, and not to Commons articles, which would have been possible, but illogical, nonsense.--Darwinius (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

And that's where the problem arises with what to do with Commons galeries. Jared Preston (talk) 08:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ideally Commons categories should be linked to Wikipedia articles and Wikipedia articles should be linked to Commons categories, it has been the way it works here since I joined the project in 2009. That's why I found your reverts so awkward.--Darwinius (talk) 13:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Please help: set to "Портал:Політологія" portal in the Ukrainian Wikipedia (Q8133239) links to other portals (in political science = Politology, where "Portal:Political science", not politics - "Portal:Politics"). Because "Портал:Політологія" (Q8133239) = "Portal:Political science"(Q10872744).

• https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q8133239#sitelinks-wikipedia
• https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q10872744#sitelinks-wikipedia

Regards --Krupski Oleg (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Done. Jared Preston (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Thank you! --Krupski Oleg (talk) 11:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for correcting my entry. Honestly it was just a shill because I don't know how to generate a bidirectional statement. At <Leonardo da Vinci (Q762)> <Anchiano (Q154184)> is listed as a <place of birth> but at the entry for <Anchiano (Q154184)> there is no hint to <Leonardo da Vinci (Q762)>. Can this problem be solved? And it which way? Thank a lot for clarify that! – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Solfatara (talk • contribs) at 11:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC).Reply

Not that I honestly know of. You'd have more luck posting at the WD:Project chat. Jared Preston (talk) 13:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hallo, ich habe begonnen, einige Konflikte zu bereinigen (und du hast es kontrolliert – danke schön). Bei slawischen Sprachen mit kyrillischer Schrift bin ich überfordert; wegen deiner Russisch-Kenntnisse bitte ich dich deshalb gezielt um Unterstützung:

• Beim Konflikt Delphi (Q487378) / Delphi (Q4037189) auf Interwiki conflicts sind drei Einträge ungeklärt.
• Bei shaft (Q309383) / drive shaft (Q6304756) / Cardan shaft (Q18029395) – siehe Talk:Q309383 – müssen eine Reihe von Zuordnungen geprüft und möglicherweise geändert werden. Darum werde ich mich nach und nach kümmern, kann aber nicht alles verstehen und erledigen.

Bei Wikidata mache ich nur ab und zu mit, wenn mir etwas auffällt. Wenn ich etwas anfange, will ich es auch korrekt beenden. Aber in diesen Fällen fehlen mir die Kenntnisse. -- Juetho (talk) 08:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Juetho! Ich könnte falsch liegen, aber auf den ersten schnellen Blick kommt es mir so vor, als ob es bei den Delphi-Items um den Unterschied geht zwischen dem Programm und der Programmiersprache selber. In der russischsprachigen Wikipedia gibt es eben Artikel für beide Sachen. In der englischsprachigen Wikipedia wird hingegen alles im selben Artikel detailliert beschrieben. Was den "Wellen" angeht, kann ich leider überhaupt nicht helfen. Ich habe von Mechanik gar keine Ahnung. Es sind auch jede Menge Links, die eine Anzahl von verschiedenen Dingen darstellen könnten. Ich habe eigentlich nur die Labels der englischen Begriffe geändert, damit sie nicht mit großem Buchstaben anfangen. Die Klammern waren auch überflüssig. Viel Glück bei der Bearbeitung und viel Spaß im Projekt – lass dich nicht entmutigen! Jared Preston (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hallo Jared, danke für die Klärung. Zu Delphi: Ich hatte früher selbst damit gearbeitet (deshalb war es mir aufgefallen) und sehe eigentlich keinen Grund in einer Trennung. Aber wenn es so ist, dann müssen tatsächlich zwei Items bleiben. Zu den Wellen: Auf Talk:Q309383 hat Abc82 etwas zur Autodescription geschrieben. Ich weiß zwar nicht, was ich damit anfangen könnte; aber die Abhängigkeit der Einträge ist klar – so wie ich es beschrieben habe. Ich werde also alles ändern, was ich beurteilen kann, und überlasse den Rest anderen. -- Gruß Jürgen 18:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Bei den Antriebswellen bin ich über weitere Duplikate gestolpert. Bitte richte Weiterleitungen ein für:

• shaft (Q20033194) nach shaft (Q309383)
• drive shaft (Q10476866) nach drive shaft (Q6304756)

Ich wundere mich, dass geleerte Einträge nicht gelöscht werden und ich Weiterleitungen nicht selbst einrichten darf. Wegen der Komplexität von Wikidata kann ich das zwar verstehen, aber in solch eindeutigen Fällen? -- Juetho (talk) 06:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Nachtrag: Wie kann man am Anfang der Seite am besten auf die verwandten Einträge shaft / drive shaft / cardan shaft hinweisen? (So ähnlich wäre es auch bei Delphi denkbar.) -- Juetho (talk) 07:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Möglicherweise different from (P1889)? Jared Preston (talk) 07:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Danke, das passt (erledigt). Danke auch für die Weiterleitungen. Ich werde die WP-Artikelnamen nochmals kurz überfliegen; wahrscheinlich schließe ich meine Prüfung der Antriebswellen damit ab. -- Juetho (talk) 09:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Auf Talk:Q309383 hatte ich meine Eingruppierung wie folgt erklärt:

If a WP project doesn't differ (between "drive shaft" and "cardan shaft"), the article should be listed in "drive shaft".

Meiner Meinung nach sollte dort, wo statt des allgemeineren Begriff "Antriebswelle" nur der "Kardanantrieb" als Artikel vorhanden ist, dieser Artikel mit den anderen allgemeineren Artikeln verknüpft werden. Man kann das natürlich auch anders sehen. Ich würde es begrüßen, wenn du deine Änderung auf dieser Disk. begründen würdest. Andernfalls könnten sich spätere "Prüfer" über den Unterschied zwischen Begründung und tatsächlicher Zuordnung wundern.

Andererseits ist diese Zuordnung sowieso nebensächlich, nachdem Abc82 die Einträge different from (P1889) wieder entfernt hat (aus welchem Grund auch immer). Damit ist der Zusammenhang zwischen diesen drei Einträgen (und allen weiteren zu den gleichen Begriffen) verlorengegangen.   Nun ja... -- Juetho (talk) 14:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Er scheint sich aber gut auszukennen. Die Items sind auch immer noch irgendwie mit einander verlinkt. Wenn deiner Meinung nach Cardan shaft (Q18029395) zu viele Wikipedia-Links hat, kannst du die von mir aus gerne zurück zu drive shaft (Q6304756) schieben. Aber für mich sieht es jetzt mehr oder minder gut aus. Jared Preston (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Pages like Help:Label/pt can not be translated that had their original translations erased with the arguments that have been vandalized, how do I continue the translation? Grateful.

CarlosDelfino (talk) 13:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

You may recreate the pt page as described:

You should consider whether it is appropriate to continue editing this page.

The page itself isn't described to be vandalism, but the earlier content seemed to be. (By the way, your question isn't related to interwiki conflicts. It's appropriate to add this as a new topic like I did.) -- Juetho (talk) 07:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jared, please would you describe the new entries in the list. Greetings, Harry Canyon (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, Harry. I completely missed your message from almost three weeks ago. Fortunately, someone else got to it in the meantime. Please accept my apologies! Jared Preston (talk) 12:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Can you please undelete Q23923879? I was in the middle of working on it. James Hare (NIOSH) (talk) 01:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I have no idea what you are planning. It seems like you wanted to create hundreds of items and leave them for ages, hoping someone else could clear-up. It is impossible to guess what the items are about. Of course I can undelete the item, but please bare in mind our notability requirements. Jared Preston (talk) 12:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Jared Preston, I will be filling out all of these items with metadata. There is a lot of them, so it will take time. Thank you for your understanding. James Hare (NIOSH) (talk) 13:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Best of luck to you! Let me know when you're finished! Jared Preston (talk) 13:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

You deleted Q21180686 . There are plenty of references for notability. I have been trying to get people on the web to mark up their data and define entities here on Wikidata and elsewhere. It's sort of difficult to do that without a Wikidata page myself. I'm happy to build out the page more to include the following references, but I disagree with your decision. Please reinstate this page. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Balibones (talk • contribs) at 17:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC).Reply

@Balibones: I have redacted the dozens of references you have added to my talk page, I suggest you create an article on Wikipedia with those, then the item on Wikidata would be automatically notable anyway. Yes, I will undo deletion of Q21180686 upon your request, but just wanted to let you know that it was someone else who had nominated it for deletion; I fulfilled the request because the item wasn't notable as it stood. Since you are interested in the subject, I look forward to seeing your enthusiasm across the project. Jared Preston (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I will look into fulfilling the requirements for Wikipedia, and I look forward to continued contributions across the project.

Please add gu:ડૉનલડ ટ્રંપ. Thanks. --Lala khan (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Done by KartikMistry (talk • contribs • logs). Jared Preston (talk) 16:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi - Thanks for helping out on my page. Can you please let me know from where the Google Knowledge Graph pulls images? That's why I'm uploading them here. Jessewaugh

Hi, thank you for the information about my deletion request for Q24053373. Is there is any tool I can use to merge and redirect items in similar circumstances? Pietro (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Pietro: Hey there. You're very welcome. Yes, there is a merge tool located in your preferences. In fact, it is the very first gadget available. If you activate that and refresh your cache, it should be available to you. It does all the work automatically, including redirecting the higher Qid number to the lower one, so neither item has to be deleted. Jared Preston (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Selected! Tank you, Pietro (talk) 15:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jared, this is a much belated question to something that happened a year ago. Nevertheless, I don't understand your deletion of VD in Swedish. VD is the exact Swedish equivalent to CEO, so it seems that either we keep VD or delete CEO as well ... --81.227.137.40 05:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

I didn't know that. If you take a look at Help:Aliases you will see that simply having "CEO" would not help someone searching for Margareta Neld, so I have deleted both that alias and the one saying "coach". They're useless. Jared Preston (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Can you please undelete Q24464794? I was in the middle of working on it and was actually about to add her image from Wikimedia Commons to meet the notability policy. I was also planning to reference Dr. Becker's Facebook and Twitter accounts as a proof that she may have her Wikidata entry as well. Would appreciate if you can help point out what I'm doing wrong or what else should I need to do to create her entry. Thanks a lot in advance! 6:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sarahlordern: It didn't seem like you were "working on it", since you had only created the item without adding any sitelinks or properties. Having a facebook or twitter account doesn't make someone notable, nevertheless, I have restored the item for you to improve and I'll give you a few days for it. Jared Preston (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much for restoring her account Jared Preston, really appreciate your help and understanding. Rest assured I'm working on it, I'm just quite busy these past few days and just need more time to familiarize myself with the notability policy and all. I will surely add sitelinks and properties as well. Thanks again and hope to get more friendly and helpful advice from you! 19:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

You're going to have to show me and other administrators how this woman is notable, because as it stands, she isn't – nor can I see how she could be either. Another five days have passed since you last made an edit, so I'm beginning to think the subject isn't that important. If nothing changes, Q24464794 will eventually be deleted. Jared Preston (talk) 08:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Over a year later not one further edit. Result: deleted. Jared Preston (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jared Preston,

Could you undelete Q24574402 & Q24574414. This is a work in progress from a new user that will be a very valuable contributor in the life sciences domain. It also seems reasonable that a user would have a chance to fix an item before it is deleted, especially when the page was created less than 24 hours before the deletion. Thanks. Putmantime (talk) 11:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jared Preston,

Pingin you again about this issue. This situation was really off putting for this new user. Please let me know what to tell him. Should he just start over? Putmantime (talk) 07:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm very sorry that I didn't see your original message last week. Let me explain a little: Another user came across those two items and requested their deletion, which I carried out. There was nothing I could see in those items to suggest that they could be notable, so we were both within our rights. User:EWDeutsch may be a new user, but he knows how to create items and add properties; so upon this evidence I can only suggest that he creates them again with the appropriate properties to make them notable. By all means create a decent Wikipedia article (in any language) to automatically gain notability on Wikidata, but either way, one needs to take some time when creating a new item. Why rush something if you're new? Take time. I cannot condone creating one, then leaving it for hours "unattended". If you do that, then it's only a matter of time until someone requests deletion – just like in this case. Consequently, I don't see the need for the undeletion of Q24574402 and Q24574414, as there's nothing worth recovering. Jared Preston (talk) 07:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I saw you protected female (Q6581072) against vandalism by allowing only autoconfirmed users to modify the item. Can you do the same for Catholic Church (Q9592) where all IP contributions are reverted. Thank you Snipre (talk) 14:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Done for a period of six months first to start. Jared Preston (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Technically they are not templates, but articles. They are created in wrong namespace.--GZWDer (talk) 05:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm sorry of it! I'll double check it in the future. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Martin Urbanec: No, please don't worry. I wasn't angry – I know that your requests are always good. Thank you for all your help and keep up the good work! Jared Preston (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

:) Thanks. I've added two others a moment ago, could you delete them? --Martin Urbanec (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Done. I check the page quite often. Maybe it would be an idea to become an admin here yourself, Martin!?! Jared Preston (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Maybe I'll request sysop flag later but if you wish my adminship you can nominate me :). But at least now I won't request rights for myself. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Mi hai annullato una modifica, ma secondo me hai sbagliato. Se vuoi lasciare l'errore è una tua scelta. Buon lavoro.--Lungoleno (talk) 14:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

I just don't know why you were deleting all the sitelinks. If you believe there should be a new item for what you are suggesting, then go ahead and create one, moving the Italian sitelink and explaining why. Jared Preston (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Guarda la differenza, se non mi credi: machismo e maschilismo. Su it.Wiki NON esiste la voce Machismo e, se mi permetti, NON ho alcun obbligo di creare nessuna voce, solo di segnalare che tu hai commesso un errore, non io. Sperò che le mie spiegazioni ti siano sufficienti. Buon lavoro, e decidi tu se lasciare l'errore, assumendotene la responsabilità, o eliminarlo.--Lungoleno (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jared Preston,

Thanks for having looked into this. Somehow I fail to understand the relevancy of the initial comment. As it's frequent, it was suggested that I simply ignore them. Cycn doesn't seem to get it either. Do you?

Just to make it clear: only Q26155256 should be deleted (in my opinion).
--- Jura 06:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jura1 (talk • contribs • logs). Do you mean: "This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion."? - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 06:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

It seems your browser doesn't support anchors ..
--- Jura 06:36, 28 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

There was no initial comment. Just the user showing that the requested Qid should be merged. I merged it. Other than that, I'm lost in this conversation. Jared Preston (talk) 08:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to both of you. That was the wrong anchor: it should be Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions/Archive/2016/07/27#Q610127 and item Q610127.
--- Jura 08:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

OK, so what about the identifier? Can that be used on one of the other items (if it isn't already)? And why can't one of the other items be merged into Q610127? Jared Preston (talk) 08:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

It's a mixup. If you think it should be merged back, feel free to. As for the identifier, I don't have a way to find out it is about and given that it's being decommissioned .. I don't think it's worth investigating.
--- Jura 08:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

I don't think anything, it is way too complicated for me! I trust you, Jura, so if you say it should be deleted, I'll delete it for you. Just promise me you'll take care of the surviving items. Jared Preston (talk) 08:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Deleted Q610127. Jared Preston (talk) 11:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello Jared. I connect documentation page of US airport data template on English wiki to Azerbijani wiki. But today you delete associated Wikidata item. Maybe I don't know all rules, can you explain reason of deletion? --Aabdullayev851 (talk) 10:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Aabdullayev851: /doc subpages of templates aren't notable. See Wikidata:Notability. The item for the template already exists at Q22768681. Jared Preston (talk) 13:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for deleting all the links of Njals Saga. I actually misplaced the zh-classical one and I didn't know how to do it. I am really sorry for that.--丁子君 (talk) 19:35, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

@丁子君: No worries! Jared Preston (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I will be careful next time.--丁子君 (talk) 19:40, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

It can happen pretty quickly. The userface is very complicated for new users. Jared Preston (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Could you please help me out here? Those bots make me sick...--Hubon (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Too late now – the bot was faster once again... You'll find my question on the talk page. Regards--Hubon (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Kopie:

Sprache Bezeichnung Beschreibung Auch bekannt als
Deutsch
Botanischer Garten Karlsruhe
Keine Beschreibung vorhanden
Englisch
Botanischer Garten Karlsruhe
municipal botanical garden located in Karlsruhe, Baden-Württemberg, Germany
Französisch
jardin botanique de Karlsruhe
jardin botanique à Karlsruhe
Bairisch
Keine Bezeichnung vorhanden
Keine Beschreibung vorhanden

Ich schon, oder verstehe ich das display falsch? Gruss bkb 05:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Bussakendle: Aha, das sind die sogenannten Labels. In einer idealen Welt, hätten wir Bezeichnungen (Labels) in allen Sprachen. Das ist die Idee hinter Wikidata. Das heißt aber in deinem Fall bei Q475580 nicht, dass es bereits einen Eintrag in der bairischen Wikipedia gibt, denn das gibt es wirklich noch nicht. Also gibt es da nichts zu löschen. Aber nehmen wir als Beispiel die spanische Wikipedia, wenn da jemand den Artikel "Jardín Botánico de Karslruhe" schreibt und nichts über den Eintrag w:de:Botanischer Garten Karlsruhe weißt, könnte er Q475580 über die Bezeichnungen suchen/finden und den neuen Link dort hinzufügen. Ein bisschen mehr über Labels in deutscher Sprache kann hier (→ Help:Label/de) nachgeschlagen werden, aber ich befürchte, ich habe das alles nicht ganz ausreichend dargestellt – allerdings, wenn ich sonst in irgendeiner Weise behilflich sein kann, gib Bescheid! Jared Preston (talk) 08:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Please motivate your decision to keep this item. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 10:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Dear Sjoerd, I have no motivation other than the fact that, according to our own notability guidelines, the subject (item) refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The age of the subject, in this instance, has little or no bearing. Furthermore, despite the problems we've all had with Andy, your revert was incorrect, and despite Jura's argument (or lack of), the subject also fulfills structural need. I don't see the need to waste further time on this – there are far more complicated examples where notability on Wikidata isn't so clear cut, where the existence of a subject cannot be so easily sourced as it can and has been in this case. Jared Preston (talk) 14:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

• I don't quite see where that goes: any person mentioned in a census or a phone book is a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity.
  --- Jura 14:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Theoretically, some people could argue that that's possible. And why not, if we create items for every street? Why stop there? Have houses listed too! Jared Preston (talk) 14:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

That's what had been argued, but that doesn't explain why we delete items for other people.
--- Jura 14:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Jared Preston: no correct! I am a Vietnamese. I talk I know learn word Vietnamese for wikidata. Categorization => Thể loại; Wikipedia:Categorization => Wikipedia:Thể loại. Thanks! Boyconga278 (talk) 09:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

As I wrote already, "thể loại" is not written with a capital letter and Wikidata labels aren't either. This is not a problem in spelling, merely upper/lower case labels. For more information, see Help:Label. Jared Preston (talk) 09:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi, could you explain why you reverted this [5], [6]? --Zache (talk) 07:58, 5 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Zache: Sorry! I obviously misclicked! Thanks for re-adding! Jared Preston (talk) 08:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ok, no problem! --Zache (talk) 08:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jared, can you tell me why you are reverting the P27 for having a value of Scotland? I'm trying to create a timeline of female Scottish architects and Wikidata is supposed to be able to cope with multiple values for a property (e.g. where there are multiple occupations for instance) and it is perfectly legitimate for someone to be both British and Scottish at the same time especially as P27 covers nationality as well as citizenship. There are at least 1200 other items where P27 has Scotland as a value -are they all wrong? If P27 is not the right property then please let me know which one is... if it's P172 the fact that there are only 45 items with that value should tell you where the weight of opinion currently lies. Stinglehammer (talk) 01:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Stinglehammer: country of citizenship (P27) has the alias "nationality", but as the property clearly says, it's for the "country of citizenship". Scotland, although a country, doesn't issue its own passports. Its subjects are British citizens. But you probably knew that already. There is otherwise, furthermore, British nationality law (Q918305). I do indeed think those 1200 items you mention are indeed false. How many links are there in comparison to United Kingdom (Q145) (for counter-argument purposes)? I don't know what ethnic group (P172) has to do with it. Maybe you need to run queries for female architects that were born in Scotland, but you can't just go and add Scotland as country of citizenship when there is no such thing, that's not on. May I suggest the Wikidata:Project chat for further queries? You'll probably find someone more helpful towards your goals than I am or could be. Jared Preston (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Please also protect Q207550. Rita Barberá (a famous Spanish politician and honestly quite corrupt) and a lot of people are having fn with Wikidata. --Barcex (talk) 10:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

If the vandalism gets worse, I will protect that too, yes. Jared Preston (talk) 10:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yup, infarction (Q207550) has now been protected. Jared Preston (talk) 11:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Just to say thank you ! I'm sorry, I tried to merge the 2 items, but I got multiple errors ... — Medmig (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Medmig: No worries! I knew what you were thinking and it has been done now. Jared Preston (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

The article on Sunsun in French is about a designer woman (which will maybe be delete). The Q7638528 in wikidata is about a song called Sun sun. they are not the same. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Baptisteg (talk • contribs) at 02:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC).Reply

Yes, I saw. Jared Preston (talk) 05:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks you ; ) --Baptisteg (talk) 06:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello,
I have a little experience on Wikidata. I want to assign to Q4335985 the label "Order of Labour (Romania)". Where can I find how to do this? Thank you. --Turbojet (talk) 12:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Well, if you meant adding the label in English, I've done this for you. Jared Preston (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, but now it is unclear whether it is the Order of Czechoslovakia, Romania, or else. With "(Romania)" were unambiguous. --Turbojet (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

See Help:Label, labels can be ambiguous. That is why we can and do add a description. If the Order had the word "Romanian" in the title, it could and would be added, but since it's known simply as "Order of Labour", just like in Czechoslovakia, the description comes in useful. This wouldn't be possible on Wikipedia, as the two pages need disambiguating titles, but it is here. Jared Preston (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm new here and I just saw that you have reverted my changes in the article of Warzone 2100 in Spanish, would you tell me why? – The preceding unsigned comment was added by GalaxyLJGD (talk • contribs) at 20:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC).Reply

First of all, please sign your posts (with four tildes, like this: ~~~~). Furthermore, I have never made an edit to that article on the Spanish Wikipedia, but I know you are referring to my revert at Q386632. To answer your question – you shouldn't have removed valid data just because it's obsolete. If there is a new version to the game, then just add the new data to the item. Jared Preston (talk) 20:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks and sorry for the mistake, I will make the changes again but this time correctly.
Sorry for my bad English. GalaxyLJGD (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Dear Jared, thanks for helping me. Can you also help me with something on wiki? The Facebook page of our hometown is linked to the wrong Wikipedia page. https://www.facebook.com/places/Dingen-die-je-kunt-doen-in-Erp-Ariege/105742586126861/ As you can see it says (Ariege) in France: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erp_(Ari%C3%A8ge) It should be https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erp_(Meierijstad) The people at Facebook told me it needs a change in Wikipedia. Can you tell me where to change this? Thanks! Regards, August. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by AugustFM (talk • contribs) at 07:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC).Reply

"As I can see"? I don't see, no... that is the problem. I don't even know if I could see, but I don't understand. I don't know if there's anything I can do on Wikidata to help you; although if there was, I would. The two items concerned here are Erp (Q1340766) and Erp (Q3057422), but nowhere can I see a facebook-link, which makes me wonder if the problem doesn't lie with facebook. Jared Preston (talk) 07:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

How do I change Japanese page for Q207784, from "スクウェア・エニックス・ホールディングス" (Square Enix) to スクウェア・エニックス・ホールディングス" (Square Enix Holdings)? I wanted to change it but it gives me an error. I tried removing it, and adding it back, but it doesn't work. Need your help. Thanks. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 115.66.203.56 (talk • contribs) at 01:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC).Reply

Square Enix Holdings (Q11311474) already exists. Jared Preston (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jared, sag mal, warum hast Du denn meinen Wikidataeintrag gelöscht? Dieser wurde erst heute Nacht von User:Sergkarman angelegt. Kaum habe ich begonnen, ihn mit Leben zu füllen, war er auch schon wieder weg... ;-) Danke und Grüße, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Martin Falbisoner: Man hat ihn (den Eintrag) hier zur Löschung vorgeschlagen. So wie es ausgeschaut hat, fehlte die Relevanz. Kennst du schon unsere Richtlinien? Da der Eintrag um deine Person ging, kannst du mir verraten, warum du hier einen Eintrag haben solltest? Jared Preston (talk) 06:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Gute Frage, ich war selbst überrascht, dass der Eintrag angelegt wurde (nicht von mir!). Offenbar dachte User:Sergkarman, ich solle mir, analog zu einigen anderen fleißigen Commons-Fotografen, eine eineindeutige ID zulegen. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Martin Falbisoner: Bei Herrn Delso sehe ich ebenso keine automatische Relevanz, wobei man mit award received (P166) etwas argumentieren könnte. Deine Werke sind wunderschön; umso großartiger, du hilfst Wikimedia, in dem du deine tollen Fotos bei uns hochlädst! Jared Preston (talk) 06:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Alles klar, Thanks! :-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

This page was deleted by you but I believe he satisfies the notability guidelines and thus the page should be restored. That is: 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. If there is no item about you yet, you are probably not notable. Provided were serious and publicly available references - therealdeal.com, jpost.com, gothamist.com, dezeen.com. RealEstater26 (talk) 10:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

My knowledge of websites may not be the benchmark, but having never heard of the sites you quote, please feel free to explain why you think they are serious references. As it was, the item you had created was not notable; but I suggest if the subject is indeed a notable person for his life and work, then you could create an article in the English (or maybe Hebrew) Wikipedia which would grant automatic notability. I then wouldn't have any reservations about undeleting the item. Jared Preston (talk) 11:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your reply. I appreciate your efforts to be vigilant on Wikidata. It is important that the integrity of it be protected. Having said that, the subject in question is a New York real estate personality and the websites quoted are in this niche. They are all legitimate serious publicly available references. Such being the case the deletion should be reversed. RealEstater26 (talk) 12:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

I have restored the item and requested deletion for other colleagues to discuss. If you'd like to make any further points to what you've already said, then you can do so there. Jared Preston (talk) 12:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Why conversation rather than conversion? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Liuxinyu970226: You tell me! All I did was correct the capitalisation of the label; from upper to lower case. Jared Preston (talk) 07:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team is inviting all Wikimedians to discuss new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools in December 2017 for development work in early 2018.

We are specifically contacting you for your ideas because you are one of the top users of the blocking tool on Wikidata. We think that your comments will help us make better improvements. You can post to the discussion in the language that you are most comfortable expressing your ideas.

1. Spread the word that the consultation is happening; this is an important discussion for making decisions about improving the blocking tools.
2. Help with translation.
3. If you know of current or previous discussions about blocking tools that happened on your wiki, share the links.
4. Help summarize the discussion to share back to your wiki.

If you have questions you can contact me on wiki or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

• I apologize for posting in English.
• Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

Hello again,

The discussion about new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools is happening on meta now and is in the final days.

We contacted you because you are one of the top users of the blocking tool on this wiki. We think that your comments will help us make better improvements. There is still time to share your ideas. You can post to the discussion in any language.

Thank you if you have already shared your thoughts. You can also help out by sharing a link to the meta discussion with users on this wiki. Or you can translate the summary of the discussion and share it on this wiki.

If you have questions you can contact me on wiki or by email.

• I apologize for posting in English.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello Jared, You deleted entry Q50335082 Ollie English an Australian musician for not meeting the notability requirements. While he is not yet notable to have a wikipedia page so does not meet criteria 1 it should meet 2 and 3. The reason why I created this entry was to a link between an entry in the musicbrainz database and wikimedia commons where I have uploaded a photo. Musicbrainz artist id: https://musicbrainz.org/artist/293ba8e3-0a4c-4b6c-bc84-5821d79c6c46 commons file: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ollie_English.jpg  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dns server (talk • contribs) at 12:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC).Reply

@Dns server: I fail to see any notability, but I have restored the item for you to work on further. Jared Preston (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi. There are a lot more edits from this user that need to be cleaned up and possibly hidden. It is a cross-wiki spammer. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 11:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the heads-up. Fortunately, another colleague has dealt with it already. Have a nice day! Jared Preston (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

You are receiving this message because you are a top user of Special:Block on this wiki. Thank you for the important work that you do. There is a discussion happening about plans to improve Special:Block with the ability to set new types of blocks. To get the best design and new functions added, it is essential that people who use the tool join the discussion and share their opinions about these changes.

Instead of a full site wide block, you would be able to set a Partial Block. A user could be blocked from a single page, multiple pages, one or more namespaces, from uploading files, etc. There are several different ways to add this feature to Special:Block. Right now Important decisions are being made about the design and function.

Please review the page on Meta and share your feedback on the discussion page. Or you can reach me by email Also, share this message with anyone else who might be interested in participating in the discussion.

I appreciate any time that you can give to assist with making improvements to this feature. Cheers, SPoore (WMF) (talk) , Trust and Safety Specialist, Community health initiative (talk) 01:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Apologizes for posting in English.

Hopefully you can help me out with this random act of Vandalism.

We are working on our corporate structure and we wanted to add our business to Wikidata.

We add the info https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q59472273 at the request from the business owner.

I followed the guidelines and filled in the recommended info.

Vanbasten_23 comes in and recommends deletion, instead of suggesting an edit....nice guy..

To me this is a violation of the community wikidata is based on.

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:Vanbasten_23#Why_did_you_delete_a_real_business%3F_Q59472273

Thanks for your help.

Hello! Unfortunately your admin privileges were removed for inactivity. Thanks for your service in the past! Rschen7754 19:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)Reply