If you are a user who has a request for removal of non-public personal information, please note that details should not be posted in public. Email oversightwikidata.org or a local oversighter privately.
If you are requesting the restoration of a deleted item, please be sure to explain how the item meets our notability criteria. If you are claiming that the item "can be described using serious and publicly available references", please list some of those references in your request.
On this page, old discussions are archived. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2024/07.
SpBotarchives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose oldest comment is older than 7 days.
Attention administrators: This message is appearing because there are more than 100 open requests at Wikidata:Requests for deletions. Please consider helping with the backlog.
Is it really permissible to create data objects for newspaper articles or blog posts and then use them for references so that one can argue that they have a structural use? I always thought with newspaper articles and blog posts one should use the property reference URL (P854) in a source. But then there is, for example, the blog post Q21079834 which has its own data object. Is this really permissible, especially if the author Q21079840 becomes relevant via this blog post, even though she only wrote this one blog post? --Gymnicus (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
...That's the official blog of a multi billion media conglomerate
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. —Hasley+15:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. —Hasley+15:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Onenews and Malaya Post don’t seem like regular media. The article on mstar seems promotional in nature (this section of the website regularly seems to feature artists of rather mixed quality). I’m not so sure about the claimed “TV news” but rather skeptical. But then again, I might be biased for some reason. Could anyone have a look and decide accordingly? Thanks! --Emu (talk) 08:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick side note: This edit and other similar ones together with the creation of many items for artwork, production company and even family members factored into my original decision to delete. But I’m happy to be corrected if I misjudged. --Emu (talk) 09:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my original RfD. In my view, an individual work of art must have individual notability, i.e. beyond a collateral mention (e.g. be exhibited). All of these seem promotional in nature. A work of art may become notable over time, but at the present, I do not see how this meets WD:N. As always, happy to have greater minds correct me. Ari T. Benchaim(talk)11:57, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello sir, firstly it's not a promotional. It went viral and attracted many medias including the television news. And one more thing, i didn't want you to focus on the artwork but i want you to focus on the artist. I just need you to restore the artist's wikidata not his artwork's. His achievements are, his artwork has entered the national palace and the owner of his artwork now is Her Majesty Queen Tunku Azizah. Hopefully you can reconsider to restore.
Yes sir, the queen accepted the gift, his artwork entered the national palace right after Her Majesty The Queen Tunku Azizah interested to accept the gift
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. —Hasley+14:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. —Hasley+14:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. —Hasley+14:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. —Hasley+14:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Report concerning User:Mr. FuerJ. M. Vázquez on WheeIs
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. —Hasley+14:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. —Hasley+14:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Add a link
Hello administrators: could you add to the element Q72416580 the link to eswiki → Usuario:Userbox/Usuario SWViewer ? I tried to add it myself, but I activated a filter that prohibits adding links to pages in the User: namespace. On Spanish Wikipedia, all userboxes are in the User: namespace. Thanks a lot! Benjaminpvera (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. —Hasley+14:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Revdel'd the first, oversighted the other two. In the future, please remember that in the case of oversight or revision deletion its best not to post such a note publically on the noticeboard, but rather email oversighters via `oversightwikidata.org` --DannyS712 (talk) 04:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 04:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo lieber Admin,
ich habe versucht ein neues Datenobjekt zu erstellen, was automatisch mit folgendem Hinweis abgelehnt wurde:
"Diese Aktion wurde automatisch als schädlich erkannt und deshalb nicht ausgeführt. Wenn du denkst, dass deine Aktion konstruktiv war, wende dich bitte an einen Administrator und schildere ihm, was du versucht hast beizutragen. Kurzbeschreibung der verletzten Regel: online shopping spam"
Ich vermute das Problem liegt an Bezeichnung der Firma "meine-jobbörse.de", die gleichnamige Domain der Firma darstellt. Die Beschreibung dazu wäre: smarte online Jobbörse
Kannst Du dies Datenobjekt erstellen bzw. die Erstellung für mich freigeben?
Besten Dank vorab
Silverman1983
@Silverman1983: Die Erstellung des neuen Datenobjekts wurde von einem automatischen Filter abgelehnt. Ich sehe aktuell keinen Hinweis, dass das vorgeschlagene neue Datenobjekt relevant im Sinne von Wikidata:Notability/de sein könnte. Unternehmen werden in der Regel nur als relevant eingestuft, wenn es entweder einen Wikipediaartikel gibt oder unabhängige, nicht bezahlte Berichte in seriösen Medien vorliegen. --Emu (talk) 09:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nanahuatl has created spam violation for my account as i'm create items of non-notable peoples. I have never created any item of non-notable peoples. For all of my edits i have added high references, wiki articles and verified sources. As a editor i always try to create real and notable items on wikidata. Therefore please check about this violation.
Thank You !
New tags for edits done via Wikidata’s user interface
Hello,
As you may know, revisions made on Wikidata are associated with special tags that makes it possible to query with what interface an edit was made, such as ios app edit for edits made from mobile app for iOS, or quickstatements [2.0] for edits made by the QuickStatements tool.
There is currently no way on Wikidata itself to easily find out which edits are done via the Wikidata user interface directly (Wikibase View) or via Wikipedia and co (Wikibase Client), and so we are proposing a "wikidata-ui” tag for “Wikidata User Interface” edits (as well as some other tags e.g. for “Sitelink Change from Connected Wiki”). This will enable users to filter out all automated edits, for example.
We kindly request for an Admin to create the tags for this.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask.
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. —Hasley+15:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The item verified account or profile (Q28378282), which is used on tons of items (every item that has a verified Twitter account), was just vandalized by an IP user. Seems like a good candidate for at least semi-protection. --IagoQnsi (talk)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Hazard-SJ (talk) 08:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
wikidata.org or a local oversighter privately.
Done Blocked for 1 week. Pamputt (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
wikidata.org` --DannyS712 (talk) 04:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)