Gikü

Really sorry. I didn't mean to do that.It was a mistake. My apologies, Gikü. --Yone Fernandes (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Normally is the singular protected area, and not it's status who hold IUCN protected areas category (P814). Like ecological reserve of Quebec (Q1614512) dont have IUCN protected areas category (P814), even if all the protected areas have IUCN category Ia: Strict Nature Reserve (Q14545608), but it's instead located in Forêt-la-Blanche Ecological Reserve (Q2178947) or Louis-Babel Ecological Reserve (Q1487842). --Fralambert (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for letting me know. I will revert my edits and add the property to the actual protected areas instead. --Gikü (talk) 07:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Fralambert: Done --Gikü (talk) 13:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Salut. În caz că ai chef de ceva activitate cross-wiki, aruncă o privire aici:

• ceb:Kategoriya:Moldabya_paghimo_ni_bot
• sv:Kategori:Robotskapade_Moldavienartiklar

Sunt o mulțime de articole cu titluri nenaturale, de exemplu seriile ce încep cu: Les, Gora, Dolina, Balka, Khrebet, etc. Corectarea ar putea fi făcută automatizat, inclusiv prn cerere autorului, dar poate mai trebuie convenite unele detalii dintâi, sau pe urmă. E și un volum mare de informații ce necesită verificare în surse de încredere (care online nu par să fie disponibile), cel puțin denumirile - ca să fim siguri că obiectul geografic există; nu puține erori din Geonames s-au propagat în wiki. Și s-ar părea că nu ne privește, dar din Wikipedii informațiile încep să ajungă încoace și ar fi mai bine să fie corectate de la origine.
Pe lângă asta mai sunt și dezambiguizările: ceb:Kategoriya:Pagklaro paghimo ni bot Moldabya / sv:Kategori:Robotskapade Moldavienförgreningar. Și acolo e la fel de interesant - pagini aproape duplicate, cu titluri similare/echivalente, dar care în bună parte ca să vezi că sunt justificabile, au o bază logică în spate (transliterări ale denumirilor rusești, cu omonime în alte țări, etc.) și pot fi păstrate. Короче, ужас)) --XXN, 12:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Printre altele, uite ce ID drăguț ;) 11111111 Gikü (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Tare :) O fi în sistemul binar, cumva specific celui care l-a generat involuntar )) --XXN, 18:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Daaa frate, te pricepi la asta. Gikü (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

oh, păcat că un bot a ocupat așa milestone interesant; ar fi fost o loterie bună pentru utilizatorii reali :) --XXN, 00:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Noroc. Prin Wikidata am observat că cineva a redenumit recent la rowiki articolul despre Raionul Soroca în Municipiul Soroca... Poate vei dori să revizuieşti intervenţia. --XXN, 19:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC) P.S. M-am ocupat de ceea ce mi-ai comunicat mai devreme pe mail.Reply

Aici în WD, am văzut mai demult, lunile trecute, cineva se apucase cu uneltele astea de mass-import să importeze din alte wikipedii valori pentru suprafeţele localităţilor din Moldova (şi alte ţări), unele din ele fiind destul de dubioase. L-am descurajat să facă asta, însă curăţenie aşa şi nu s-a mai făcut. Poate ar avea sens şi o discuţie globală pe acest subiect, dar am tot ezitat să o iniţiez. Părerea mea e că toate aceste valori neverificate trebuie înlăturate şi re-adăugate doar dacă găsesc surse de încredere pentru ele, de altfel reiese că practic se umple Wikidata cu date false sau incorecte. Din câte ştiu eu, pentru Moldova nu avem astfel de baze de date publice, dar dacă cumva cunoşti tu de vreo una - ar fi minunat să avem aceste date în WD. --XXN, 19:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Mulțumesc că m-ai anunțat. E evident că trebuie anulate contribuțiile alea nereferențiate. Chiar și la Wikidata, utilizatorii bolnavi de countitis nu sunt văzuți cu ochi buni. Voi căuta ceva surse, totuși. Dă-mi o săptămână.

Apropo, voi fi la Wikidata:WikidataCon 2017 peste două săptămâni. Dacă vezi în programme ceva care crezi că te-ar interesa, zi-mi și mie, poate merg la prezentarea respectivă. Cu bine, Gikü (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Bună Giku, dacă ai răgaz și poftă,

am corectat la susnumitu vechu autoru junimist (și ministru pentru 10 zile:)) anul decesului, propagat fals de la ro.wp. Întrebarea este: se poate adăuga BCU Iași (sursa) la Identifiers? Dacă este posibil, nr. lor din authority files ar fi 000010856. Mulțam.Mishuletz (talk) 16:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Mishuletz: Asta e tot ce am putut face. În articol pare să arate destul de ok. Numai bine. Gikü (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

--ValydinDD (talk) 08:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Greetings.

Can you please explain to me how and when Ehud Barak received Order of the Star of Romania (Q950604) as expressed in your editing? thanks, דגש חזק - Talk 07:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hali,

I delete because, on the hungarian side unsightly images appear some countries main pages...for example: https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%ADna, https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamerun or https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braz%C3%ADlia

Why is that?????? neither in English nor in German or in Spanish...etc not appear this problem. Victor Knox 2020. május 06., 21:59 (CEST)

@Victor Knox: Please consider fixing on huwiki the problems that appear on huwiki. Your edits need to be reverted. Thank you. Gikü (talk) 20:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello Gikü,
thank you for reverting vandalism contributions like 1, 2, 3 and many other edits made by this user.

I recently have fixed many other disrupting edits, as I have worked for several hours on this issue, painstakingly working through the contribution list of this IP and other related edits made by other IPs which appear to were taken by the same person. (I'm still not finished but already got sick of it.)

I also have checked the Wikidata items which have been created by this user and have pulled a deletion request. I would appreciate if you could post a comment there: Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions#unsourced_junk/vandalism_entries_by_IP

Thanks again and best regards. --Zaccarias (talk) 17:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Zaccarias: I have had a busy schedule lately off-wiki, plus there are some WLM image cleanup tasks in my priority to-do list, so I did not have time to continue reviewing these IPs' activity. But I am grateful for your effort, I know it can get tiresome! [insert Facebook care reaction] Anyways, today I have discovered another IP: Special:Contributions/82.79.62.243 and I will go through their contribs when I can; if you want to do it it's fine by me. Other IPs I have not yet reviewed: 86.126.160.100, 86.122.114.24, 82.79.62.216. Gikü (talk) 13:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

I have already checked this new IP's contributions, only the most recent ones (beginning Oct 4) are uncecked. I mainly checked his Wikidata contributions. The problem is, that he is a cross-wiki contributor editing almost everywhere. At least it appears that he has slowed down in editing. --Zaccarias (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Their rowiki contribs are under control. Gikü (talk) 13:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

‎Undo revision 1488078448 by 186.69.189.65 (talk): rv vandalism undo Tag: Undo (restore)

just to change a photo, all the best and thanks for the data...User_talk:Gikü

in changing a photo from 1985, scanned in and replaced with something new.

File:B5 Ecuador 028 Quito, historical zone, January 1985.jpg

 

Hi Gikü,

I noticed that you recently requested two items I created a while ago to be deleted, BottleDrop (Q107673127) and BedMart (Q107674817), because they aren't notable. However, I believe that these items are considered notable. When requesting other items used in to be undeleted a few months ago, one of the admins did mention that items with a OSM Name Suggestion Index ID (P8253) claim, which these two items also have, are "evidence that an item meets criterion 2 of our notability policy, which is a Wikidata property for an identifier that suggests notability (Q62589316)" You can read their full statement here.

--Archpdx (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Archpdx, I didn't realize OSM Name Suggestion Index ID (P8253) gives notability. AFAIK any business owner can add their business on the OSM map. No issues, I'll take this into account in the future. Thanks! Gikü (talk) 13:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Really ! For What ? Why you are lying? 2A02:2F0F:B215:0:F52D:9AE8:B0A2:D804 15:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Dear Giku,

I hope you are doing good,

I am Kholoud, a researcher at King's College London, and I work on a project as part of my PhD research, in which I have developed a personalised recommender system that suggests Wikidata items for the editors based on their past edits. I am inviting you to a task-based study that will ask you to provide your judgments about the relevance of the items suggested by our system based on your previous edits. Participation is completely voluntary, and your cooperation will enable us to evaluate the accuracy of the recommender system in suggesting relevant items to you. We will analyse the results anonymised, and they will be published to a research venue. The study will start in late January 2022 or early February 2022, and it should take no more than 30 minutes.

If you agree to participate in this study, please either contact me at kholoud.alghamdi@kcl.ac.uk or use this form https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSees9WzFXR0Vl3mHLkZCaByeFHRrBy51kBca53euq9nt3XWog/viewform?usp=sf_link I will contact you with the link to start the study.

For more information about the study, please read this post: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Kholoudsaa In case you have further questions or require more information, don't hesitate to contact me through my mentioned email.

Thank you for considering taking part in this research.

Regards Kholoudsaa (talk) Kholoudsaa (talk) 15:28, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

You are doing a great job against vandals! You have now rollbacker's rights. When edits are rollbacked, they are automatically patrolled. Have a nice day! Estopedist1 (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. I saw you reverted some removals I made to the Acura brand item (Q125140212) due to vandalism. These removals were intentional, as these statements already existed on the division (Q53097), and were not applicable to the brand.

Since I had added the original Acura brand item, the main Acura division item (Q53097) was also made an instance of "car brand". Since Acura does not manufacture their cars (Honda Motor Corporation does), and the division takes on the brand role, I went ahead and merged these two objects to eliminate the redundancy all together. In most cases, a car's brand - and manufacturer should continue to be separated - as brands can change ownership over time, and cars can be manufactured by different companies (independent of their brands).

All properties live under the new unified item at: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q53097, without redundancy.

Thank you for your diligence looking out for vandalism, and for all your time and contributions to the project. Iamcarbon (talk) 16:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey, thanks for reaching out! I owe you an apology, because I didn't mean to permanently revert this change. After I've dealt with the vandal, I set out to restore your edits, but I missed the second one somehow. Glad you took the opportunity to revisit the item. All the best! Gikü (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

Could you please add the correct Moldovan Cyrillic spellings for the lexemes you reverted my edits on? عُثمان (talk) 21:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would rather not. But please stop adding Russian words in Romanian lexemes. Gikü (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Gikü I have not added any Russian words, I am trying to work out what the correct Cyrillic spellings are. If you have a source with this information that would be helpful. عُثمان (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

First find out whether Romanian language has Cyrillic spelling at all. Gikü (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

If I understand correctly, people living on the left bank of the Dniester continue to write Romanian in the Cyrillic script, and the spellings being added are drawn from resources written in that script. Mahir256 (talk) 16:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Officially, Moldova stopped using Cyrillic in 1989. Transnistrian authorities are not recognized. Moldovans do not continue to write in the Cyrillic script there, they are forced to do so. That is Russian propaganda. Gdaniel111 (talk) 16:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

There are going to be sources from prior to 1989, however, that provide Cyrillic spellings of Romanian words (such as the "Дикционар Енчиклопедик Молдовенеск" published in Chișinău); where is the harm in indicating those in lexemes? Mahir256 (talk) 16:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

You might be right, but then not in the lexeme heading, maybe in the Forms section as an archaism or something. Sorry, but I do not know all the properties. Every language had different forms of writing a word. Romanian had many of those, e.g. dregător/deregătoriu, două/doao, se duce/să duce etc. Even Shakespeare wrote some words differently than contemporary English, notably the use of thou for you. Gdaniel111 (talk) 17:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Gdaniel111 @Gikü Archaic forms like thou can be noted separately, but for any form multiple writing systems and spellings standards can be represented. For example, on Verzeichnis/Verzeichniß (L494341) there are forms which include representations using an older German spelling system.

In the case of Romanian, it does appear to be the case that some number of speakers/writers currently use the Cyrillic script; besides writing produced in Transnistria, the Cyrillic script is also still used by speakers in Serbia. Regardless of the reason Cyrillic may still be in use, adding representations in it would make it easier to produce Latin script versions of text, ultimately making a larger body of Romanian text accessible to the majority who use the Latin system.

I did find correct spellings for the Gregorian calendar months names in Дикционар Енчиклопедик Молдовенеск. January is януарие and February фебруарие for example. I mistakenly followed the information on the Moldovan Cyrillic page on English Wikipedia which suggests и always becomes й before and after other vowels, but a closer look at the dictionary shows that the choice of letter is not necessarily predictable based on the Latin script spelling. (This is another reason why adding these spellings to Wikidata lexemes can be useful.) عُثمان (talk) 19:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@عُثمان, then you should define better the language tag, like ro-1860. P.S.: I really was wandering how the Germans did it, because they had a similar issue. In the past, in Wallachia Romanian was written in Cyrillic prior to 19th century, but we transcribe everything from that period in Latin script now. Gdaniel111 (talk) 19:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@عُثمان, which Cyrillic are you going to add? Until 1860, all Romanian (from everywhere was spoken) was written in Cyrillic, mainly in the Romanian Cyrillic alphabet, in the 19th century a transitional alphabet was invented before adopting the Latin script; in the 20th century the Moldovan Cyrillic alphabet was used in the Moldovan Soviet Republic. And, as you can read in the paper you mentioned, in Serbia the Vlach community wrote in different kind of Scripts, even Latin, but there is no standardized version. However, most of the Scripts which use Cyrillic, use a different Serbian Cyrillic-based version. Vlach Cyrillic and Moldovan Cyrillic do not match.

And lingvistic tags (ro-md), as I said, are inappropiate. Moldova stopped using Cyrillic, so a better tag is ro-md-1989 (when it ceased), similar to the German example you presented. Gdaniel111 (talk) 01:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Gdaniel111 I would use the spellings which appear in dictionaries like Дикционар Енчиклопедик Молдовенес. The differences between the different Cyrillic spelling systems are mostly small, like ж́ in Serbia, and can be derived automatically from the Moldovan Cyrillic spelling. If there are some unpredictable exceptions additional representations can be added for this. I agree that a better language code should be used, I would like to make a request for simply ro-cyrl. It can take a long time for new language codes to be added to Wikidata however, some requests from over a year ago still have not been added عُثمان (talk) 17:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@عُثمان, Cyrillic spelling can also be derived automatically from Latin. This is covered in an advice from Wikidata:Lexicographical data/Best practices: Where a correspondence in representation exists between multiple related scripts, repeating that correspondence may not be necessary.

Also, please note that the practice about multiple scripts mentions "when a language is generally written...". Currently, there is no norming authority to write Romanian in Cyrillic, so it is hard to argue the specifier applies.

Given these points, i think adding Cyrillic lexemes to Romanian is inappropriate. If you want to request and add a script specifier language to Wikidata you are welcome to do so from my point of view, although this is pointless given we're talking simple transliteration. Strainu (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Cyrillic spelling can also be derived automatically from Latin

That's not true. There are a bunch of exceptions and inconsistencies, some of which can be seen in the mistakes عُثمان and others have done like Йонел instead of «Ионел» (while Anghel Iordănescu (Q539072) would be «Ангел Йордэнеску») or йепуре instead of «епуре». In short, automating would be risky. Gikü (talk) 16:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for offering these corrections. عُثمان (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

It cannot, if you follow my comments above. عُثمان (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@عُثمان, Strainu made some good points. In Lexicographical data says: If there are multiple scripts in which a language is generally written, it is desirable for the lemma to contain a representation for each script. Currently Romanian is used by 25 million speakers. It is written in Cyrillic only by 200.000 in Transnistria region and 60.000 in Serbia (although some go as high as 300.000; but as the paper cited above says - in Serbia they use both Latin and Cyrillic scripts). The rest of 24 million or over 96% of the language's speakers write in Latin script. There is a difference between Romanian and the German use of ß and their necessity for both versions. Gdaniel111 (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Gdaniel111 That is a very large number of people using Cyrillic. Many languages have fewer speakers altogether. This is also discounting the fact that a larger number of sources are written in Cyrillic. There are no limitations on the number of representations which can be included, see for example ᱡᱚᱦᱟᱨ/জহার/jo̠har/ଜହାର/जहार (L1374900), zát/зат/زات/ذات (L1233331), ڤيچاكيڠ/picaking/පිචකිඞ්/பிசகிங் (L1371908) عُثمان (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to assume that by "it cannot" you refer to the creation of another language code. If that's not what you meant, I apologize.

Just because there is a technical gap doesn't mean it's ok to overload an existing code with lexemes that don't belong to it according to the current norming of the language. The examples that you gave are all using different subcodes for the writing systems. You should consider whether maybe there was a reason why such a code wasn't created in the first place... Strainu (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Strainu It cannot be converted automatically. The reason why the code is not available is arbitrary, several languages have no code at all. Codes can be updated as they become available. As there are no downsides to adding Cyrillic representations, and there are sources which use them, they can continue to be added. عُثمان (talk) 02:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@عُثمان the fact that you don't agree with our arguments does not make them invalid. I would urge you to seek a broader discussion if you see fit, but not ignore this discussion. Strainu (talk) 06:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@عُثمان If ro-md really is Cyrillic, you can just create separate lexemes like so: (L1375593) not Ionel/Ионел (L626778). However, there have been several attempts to prove to you the point that ro-md is NOT Cyrillic. Gikü (talk) 19:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Gikü I have not disagreed with you about that, but I cannot make ro-cyrl available any faster it still needs to be requested and added. In the meantime, I can use ro-x-Q8209 (with the Q code for Cyrillic). Creating separate lexemes on the basis of writing system (or country) creates unnecessary redundancy. عُثمان (talk) 22:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Are you for real, since when is Romani written in Cyrillic??? Special:Diff/2270087800. I am very worried that people with no knowledge of a language take liberties editing content in that language. It happened in the past: en:Scots Wikipedia#Controversy. Gikü (talk) 12:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Gikü To be clear, are you still talking about Romanian or are you asking about the Romani language(s)? عُثمان (talk) 15:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

What I asked is clear: Romani (Q13201) Gikü (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@عُثمان I really, really need to ask you to stop editing Romanian lexemes. It's obvious by now that not only you don't know the language, its norms or its history, but you don't even understand the difference between the various IETF language tags (ro, mo, rmy, ro-md, rmy-x-Q8209 etc.). You're making a mess that will be very hard to untangle. Strainu (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I had the wrong code in my clipboard, this was easy to correct. There is no need to remove referenced information because of this. عُثمان (talk) 17:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@عُثمان, Vlah Romani is a variety Romani language, not Romanian I don't think that they go together. Maybe ro-x-Q8209. Gdaniel111 (talk) 18:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@عُثمان, I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to replace everywhere ro-md with ro-x-Q8209 (Cyrillic). md or mo is code for Moldavian, a language that only Russia claims it exists. By adding that code we are only feeding Russian propaganda.

Also, as I told you, Vlah Romani is a variety of Romani language, an Indo-Aryan language, while Romanian is a Latin language. There is absolutely no relation between the two of them, so those forms need to be removed from Romanian lexemes, because that is misinformation we are giving. Gdaniel111 (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Gdaniel111 Yes I am aware of the difference, I had been editing lexemes from both and made a mistake.

I think that makes sense regarding the language codes. I have requested additional codes formally here https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T379157 عُثمان (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The requested codes are ok. Even ro-x-Q8209 works for me. Gdaniel111 (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Gikü Yes, there is a Cyrillic orthography for Romani documented on Wikipedia and in several sources.

@Strainu If you have a specific issue with an edit I have made, I am open to discussing it. عُثمان (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

This whole discussion is about issues we have with the edits you made. You don't seem very open to discussing them. Strainu (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Strainu I started the discussion and I corrected the edits in question. عُثمان (talk) 11:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

But you did not address the fact that Cyrillic script is not part of the official language in any country. Strainu (talk) 15:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply