Wikipedia:Project chat

||class="chatheader-main" |

Wikidata project chat

A place to discuss any and all aspects of Wikidata: the project itself, policy and proposals, individual data items, technical issues, etc.

Please use {{Q}} or {{P}} the first time you mention an item or property, respectively.
Other places to find help

• Frequently asked questionsHelp:FAQ
• Requests for deletions
• Merging instructionsHelp:Merge
• Report a technical problem
• Requests for protections, undeletions and other matters requiring administrator attention. To report vandalism, click here.

For realtime chat rooms about Wikidata, see Wikidata:IRC.

|

Start a new discussion

Wikidata weekly summary #675

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata in the
week leading up to 2025-04-14. Missed the previous one? See issue #674

Events

• Upcoming events: The next Wikidata+Wikibase office hours will take place on Wednesday, 16:00 UTC, 16th April 2025 (18:00 Berlin time) in the Wikidata Telegram group. The Wikidata and Wikibase office hours are online events where the development team presents what they have been working on over the past quarter, and the community is welcome to ask questions and discuss important issues related to the development of Wikidata and Wikibase.

Press, articles, blog posts, videos

• Blogs
  • Introducing m3api, By Lucas Werkmeister
  • Wikidata Query Service graph database reload at home, 2025 edition. By Adam Baso
• Videos
  • Understanding Why Your OPTIONAL Properties in Wikidata Queries Might Be Ignored
  • Playing with LEGO on Wikidata. By Tiago Lubiana
• Other: Wikidata references made easier. "Several tricks to make it easier and faster, using various scripts and gadgets" to add references to Wikidata statements. By Spinster

Tool of the week

• Wikidata Topic Curator is a React-based web application. It’s a new and improved version of ItemSubjector created to help Wikimedians connect items on Wikidata to the right topics. By entering a topic QID, it finds related articles using the topic’s label, aliases, or custom terms.

Other Noteworthy Stuff

• Join the Wikidata development team at Wikimedia Deutschland
  • Staff Engineer Wikidata (all genders)
  • Senior UX Designer Wikidata (all genders)

Newest properties and property proposals to review

• Newest General datatypes:
  • beam energy (kinetic energy of elementary or composite particles moving together (for example in a particle accelerator))
  • number of downloads (number of downloads of times this application or creative work have been downloaded)
  • Taiwanese Taigi Romanization System (Romanization system for Taiwan Taigi or other Southern Min language varieties in Fujian and South East Asia)
• Newest External identifiers: National Academy of Engineering member ID, Murderpedia ID, Cultural Heritage Azerbaijan ID, ‎TDKIV Wikibase ID, Landtag Tirol person ID, Fluorophores.org substance ID, Kosovo NGO registration number, TechPowerUp GPU Specs Database ID, iNaturalist photo ID, Climate Policy Radar ID, LIBRIS library ID, Dizionario della Musica in Italia ID, Untappd beer ID, Bahamut Animation Crazy ID, KnowWhereGraph entity ID, GCMD keyword ID, Ohio University ArchivesSpace Agent ID, CBFC record ID
• New General datatypes property proposals to review:
  • interior decorator (A property for the interior decorator of notable buildings)
  • incompatible with (significant elements with which an entity is incompatible and indicates a significant property of this entity)
  • warranty period (warranty period of this product as covered by the original manufacturer or creator)
  • Trafikplatssignatur (Swedish station code)
  • outcome 2 (outcome of a criminal charge or a civil complaint)
  • output color (color of the generated images)
  • proposal of (Qualifier for the statement {{P|31}} {{Q|64728694}} to state what the proposed thing is.)
  • floral diagram (picture on commons of a floral diagram of a Taxon)
  • member of sequence or class of number (The number is of a special form or class or member of a sequence)
• New External identifier property proposals to review: ISFDB category of an award ID, L'Expression topic ID, Identifiant d'un(e) auteurice dans le catalogue de la bibliothèque du Saulchoir, National Gallery (London) PID, Identifiant sur Orthodox World, Steam Deck HQ game ID, Hardcore gaming 101 ID, torial username, BirdLife DataZone species ID, BirdLife DataZone site ID, Schulnummer Schleswig-Holstein, Kunstkamera ID, Corago singer ID, MoNA spectrum ID, Identifiant d'un(e) auteurice dans La Croix, identifiant Meta-Doctrinal.org, CvLAC ID, OGDB genre ID, IGDB genre ID, WSGF taxonomy term ID, GameSpot platform ID, PerformArt ID, Billie Jean King Cup player ID 2024

You can comment on all open property proposals!

Did you know?

• Query examples:
  • Top 10 items instance of Wikimedia category ordered by number of Sitelinks (source)
  • Twitter accounts of biologists
• Newest WikiProjects: WikiProject USC Libraries A WikiProject for work done at University of Southern California Libraries to connect library data with Wikidata.
• WikiProject Highlights: Nonprofit Organizations/Kosovo - Add the most important NGOs of Kosovo
• Newest database reports: User:Pasleim/Connectivity - Connectivity between Wikimedia projects
• Showcase Items: Nea Salamis Famagusta FC (Q714581) - professional association football club based in Ammochostos (Famagusta)
• Showcase Lexemes: Straße (L44061) - German noun that can mean "road", "straight", "street", "strait", "group of people inhabiting buildings along a perticular street" or "production line".

Development

• We merged and prepared changes to rename wikibase:EntitySchema to wikibase:WikibaseEntitySchema in RDF (phab:T371196) – this has been announced as a breaking change and will be deployed to Wikidata on 24 April
• We made some more improvements to dark mode support (phab:T389633)
• We’re working on tests for the ScopedTypeaheadSearch feature (phab:T385790)
• Wikibase REST API: We're going to wrap up pagination on the simple Item and property search endpoint and are working to improve our test architecture for search (phab:T386691). We're going to pick up prefix search for Items and phrase matching next!

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here. If you want to help, you can also have a look at the tasks needing a volunteer.

Weekly Tasks

• Add labels, in your own language(s), for the new properties listed above.
• Contribute to the showcase Item and Lexeme above.
• Govdirectory weekly focus country: Chile
• Summarize your WikiProject's ongoing activities in one or two sentences.
• Help translate or proofread the interface and documentation pages, in your own language!
• Help merge identical items across Wikimedia projects.
• Help write the next summary!

· Read the full report · Previous issue · Unsubscribe · Mohammed Abdulai (WMDE) talk · MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Bell Textron

These two Qids seem to be referring to the same topic? Q131800014 and Q815723 ? "Q131800014" seems to be talking about the legal name of the subject of "Q815723" ; are these supposed to be separate or in the same Qid?

-- 65.92.246.77 21:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Normally, this type of thing would be a foreign subsidiary of a multinational company. However, I cannot find where Bell Textron has a true corporate office in France. There's no registered VAT or EORI. may be referring to its service center at Paris-Le Bourget Airport, but it opened in 1997, not 1989. My thought is to keep as a foreign extension of , regardless. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:33, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Shroud of Turin - duplicate

Are (most sitelinks) and the same? The second only has 4 language wikipedia sitelinks, which might be duplicates of the same 4 languages on the first item (which are French, Italian, Picard & Norman).

Also uses an image of the shroud of Turin, and I understand there's a dispute about it's origin. Should the image be deprecated and a [[:d:Property:P805#top|Template:Label (P805)]] qualifier be added, where I don't' believe there's presently an item to have as it's value, where, for example, is an item used to deprecate one of the [[:d:Property:P31#top|Template:Label (P31)]] values.

Not sure where else to flag this so posting here. Tæppa (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

There seems to be a technical distinction between the actual cloth used to wrap Jesus and the cloth currently in Turin, which latter is merely claimed to be the same as the former. I'm not sure how we should model that. CC @Ash Crow who has been adjusting labels in a way that brings them together. Bovlb (talk) 19:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I see the distinction, but the previous label ("Mandylion") refers to another artifact altogether: . I guess should be labelled "Holy Shroud". -Ash Crow (talk) 09:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Is it perhaps the case that the (no enwiki) is [[:d:Property:P460#top|Template:Label (P460)]] (main wikidata item for the much discussed physical shroud) and ?

While we're here, there seems to be an adjacent set of bad claims on (holy grail concept) that has country=Spain & a host of other non-Spain locations. Without using this thread to discuss the specifics, there's also which is the grail from Arthurian legend, where a cursory browse of the various wikipedia sitelinks reveals an inconsistent / complicated set of understanding on whether it's the grail from the or .

It might be the case that it would be too awkward documenting these potential issues on the Project Chat so I would welcome any advise on a better place to put this thread, especially if it would involve a multilingual wiki cleanup (if that is indeed the necessary outcome) Tæppa (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

A lot of places claim to have (pieces of) this cloth or pieces of the cross. Combined probably enough material to build a circus tent. So please keep the items separate, but linked. Multichill (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Team USA

I'm not sure where the best place is to put this, but I've recently noticed was archived. This makes sense as the previous website was via teamusa.org. This website now redirects to teamusa.com, which is active. I'm not sure the implications for the database or the path forward here. Should a new Q be made for the "new" website and "new" database? Is it possible to adjust the current database? I don't have enough experience with this project to know what to do, but thought I'd bring it to attention somewhere. GauchoDude (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Template:Replyto I don't think a new Wikidata item is required since can be the item for both the former website TeamUSA.org (archived link) and the current website TeamUSA.com. However, the Wikidata property [[:d:Property:P4063#top|Template:Label (P4063)]] uses an archived link for athlete profiles due to the new website using a different ID format. Using as an example, the old ID at TeamUSA.org was SH/John-Shuster (archived link) and the new ID at TeamUSA.com is john-shuster-810650. A new Wikidata property should be created for the new ID and URL, so I just requested that at Wikidata:Property proposal/TeamUSA.com athlete ID. -- Zyxw (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Vote now on the revised UCoC Enforcement Guidelines and U4C Charter

The voting period for the revisions to the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines ("UCoC EG") and the UCoC's Coordinating Committee Charter is open now through the end of 1 May (UTC) (find in your time zone). Read the information on how to participate and read over the proposal before voting on the UCoC page on Meta-wiki.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. This annual review of the EG and Charter was planned and implemented by the U4C. Further information will be provided in the coming months about the review of the UCoC itself. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, you may review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

In cooperation with the U4C -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Residences

When adding the significant residents of a house is the proper form at Q107599584 (occupant) or Q1525759 (significant person/object of statement etc)? I want to do this for the White House and 10 Downing Street etc! No Swan So Fine (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

For the residences of heads of state that would a huge duplication of information that could be deduced from a query. Vicarage (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you know what the proper form is to add residents though? At the Carter house I used occupant with start/end dates but for Kelmscott Manor I used significant person. No Swan So Fine (talk) 12:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Orthographic variant of a taxon name

How do we include data of this type? For example, item Q39515721 is the plant species Phyllanthus ferdinandi, which some authorities have spelled Phyllanthus ferdinandii (i.e. with a double 'i'). I don't believe it should have its own Q item, as the two names refer to the same concept of a species. But how do we include that information in the item's page? Junglenut (talk) 08:51, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Or perhaps it should be a separate item in Wikidata? Junglenut (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I've added Phyllanthus ferdinandii to the "Also known as" field, and from spot checking indicated how some databases list Phyllanthus ferdinandii via the [[:d:Property:P1810#top|Template:Label (P1810)]] qualifier. For simple orthographic variants or typos, I don't think separate items are warranted. -Animalparty (talk) 01:09, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Placement of Data access link before Mobile/Desktop toggle in footer

This is a minor nitpick, but why is the Data access link in the site footer before Desktop/Mobile (the skin toggle)? On the other Wikimedia wikis I visit, the toggle is the very last link in the bottom right corner of the page. I have to adjust for Wikidata. Luckily my interface language (English) has translations for both, but the Desktop toggle has many more translations than Data access.

May I suggest putting the Data access link to the left of Desktop, or removing it entirely unless it is critically important. Commander Keane (talk) 00:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Adding AI generated images to items

Hi. Apologies if this has already been discussed somewhere else, but I was wondering what the consensus is, or opinions are, on adding AI generated images to items. I can see a use case for it when the item is specifical relates to AI artwork or is about a notable piece of art that was created by AI. But there's instances where it seems to be problematic. For example, adding an AI generated image to an item for a historical event or fantasy subject where there's already plenty of images by notable artists and photographers that are PD. Obviously it would be pointless to illustrate the item for Abraham Lincoln with an AI generated image of him when there's already plenty of exiting photographs to do it with. The same probably goes for creatures from fairy tales or science fiction where there's already tons of drawings and images from well known, established artists and works that can be used instead. What do other people think about it though? Adamant1 (talk) 03:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Admittedly I am new to Wikidata, but I would have expected an "AI-generated image" property as subproperty of [[:d:Property:P18#top|Template:Label (P18)]], but I couldn't see one. Then with discretion it could be used like [[:d:Property:P5775#top|Template:Label (P5775)]] on . There is item . Commander Keane (talk) 04:48, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

That usage sounds like a variant of , and I don't think the involvement of AI technology makes a difference. So [[:d:Property:P18#top|Template:Label (P18)]] with qualifiers seems fine. Even the new [[:d:Property:P13381#top|Template:Label (P13381)]] could be used but that seems excessive Vicarage (talk) 08:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with using a property in instances where the image is being used appropriately. The question I was asking is in what instances AI generated images shouldn't be used to begin with. Since obviously there's places where it wouldn't be appropriate or necessary to use an AI generated image of something for whatever reason. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:16, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Images are added and removed based on whether they are appropriate or not and this is already done effectively. Adamant1 has a huge problem with anything AI-generated and on Commons it seems much like they would like to have them all removed from everywhere. or fantasy subject where there's already plenty of images it depends on which image is illustrating the subject best. Items use images that are helpful and illustrate the subject. In the case of the science fiction subgenre that you're referring to an AI image was illustrating it well and there was basically no other image that actually illustrates the subject but another image could also be added alongside it. I don't know of any historical event with an AI image set on the item and neither any fairy tale for which there PD art, what you're talking of is a solution in search of a problem. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

They would like to have them all removed from everywhere. I haven't taken a stance on it either way in this conversation. I could really care less what standard Wikidata uses. I'm just asking what exactly that standard is because there doesn't seem to be a policy or anything about it, which the last time I check is my prerogative. I'd love to what solution or problem you think I'm talking about here. My guess is that you don't have an answer outside of more lying about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

1. I did not lie. 2. Please stop bad faith personal attacks accusing me of lying and likely lying more. 3. Maybe not in this conversation but in others and also it's implicit. I'd love to what solution or problem you think I'm talking about here. a) The perceived and portrayed 'problem' of AI images in Wikidata items b) the development of some consensus regarding AI images when they are currently effectively dealt with. Not that such couldn't be good but it's clear from other discussions that you seek some consensus against their use and the development of such is a solution in search of a problem as AI images aren't a problem and as said effectively dealt with as is. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:36, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

The perceived and portrayed 'problem' of AI images I posed a couple of hypotheticals that I'm carious about to get the conversation going. Again, that's my prerogative. All you had to do was give a reason you disagreed with it and move on instead of pointlessly attacking me or turning this into an argument for no reason.

You seek some consensus against their use I pretty clearly said in my original that "I was wondering what the consensus is, or opinions are." Nowhere did say I propose anything or say AI images should be banned. That's why I said your lying. I ask a simple question about how people handle AI images on here and you respond by going off for multiple lines about how I'm trying to have AI images banned on Wikidata or some nonsense. Your just being dishonest. Again, I could really care less how people on here choose to handle AI images. I'm simply asking what the consensus is. It's not my issue if other people are against it. Your the one flipping out and making it about me and for no reason. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Please no AI junk here. This is not improving Wikidata at all. Some examples:

• 
• 
  /
• 
• 
• 

See also en:Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup/AI images in non-AI contexts. Please stop producing and adding this junk. Multichill (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

junk uncivil degradation.

Those images are all useful, many of them took several hours. They're good quality and there is no better-quality alternative to them. You made no reason for why to remove them. I added my images to the page you linked which by the way partly works because I laboriously identified and categorized many AI images accordingly. The images illustrate the subjects they're at and if you know of a better alternative image one could replace it plus they're captioned so as to clarify they were made using AI tools. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

The main problem with AI in this context is not the technology, but the legal aspects of it. The Commons licensing policy clearly states "Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content". If the AI was training on non-free material, which I hear is common, then that leaves use of generated content open to copyright disputes. Some cases like this is is being tried in the courts these days.

Seems to me the only acceptable use of AI on Commons would be if you can guarantee it was made by an AI that have only been training on public domain material.

Whether people prefer the wikis to be AI-free is another discussion. Say the article for Big Ben didn't have any free pictures of it on Commons. This would incentivize someone to snap a picture of it and donate it. This incentive is lost if you post an artificially generated picture in its stead. But I'm open to AI having some niche uses. Infrastruktur (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for making a well-reasoned case. Maybe other users could add more details on this but just briefly:
no such legal case had any success, all things such as past legal cases and comparable things essentially mean AI images are / can be public domain licensed, and thirdly machines are allowed to learn and be inspired from from public art like humans can when they browse the Web or watch TV. Moreover, so far Wikimedia projects did not go on to assume anti-free-culture stances, for example see the Monkey selfie copyright dispute. This incentive is lost I do not think this is the case. It may only be slightly weakened but in any case such items do not have an AI image (just few items have them and I think nearly all for subjects that can't be photographed) and most photographers are not deciding whether or not to take a photo based on whether a Wikidata item has an image set in practice and can just replace the image anyway. Lastly if there are some copyright issues with the AI models training on copyrighted content, then that doesn't make the images, that are created from a random seed, copyvios. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

No such legal case had any success As I know your aware AI images can be copyrighted in the United Kingdom and there's no way to tell what country they were originally created in. Although admittedly that's not the same as models being trained on copyrighted images but it's still a legal issue that could put re-users at risk and if there was any other type of media where we couldn't determine the country of origin it wouldn't be hosted on Commons. AI artwork just gets a free pass because people like you throw a tantrum any time someone brings the subject up. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Maybe I would agree only AI images explicitly released under CCBY/PD by the prompter/creator (note that the images above have all been edited extensively too) should be used. The images above are of that kind. I'm not throwing a tantrum and that's not the reasoning behind that. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:20, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Prototyperspective: I'm not sure how that would solve the problem. Would you support a requirement that people who upload AI generated images have to include the country of origin though? Just because the United Kingdom is currently the only place where the images can be copyrighted doesn't mean other countries won't pass similar laws at some point. By not having a policy about it now we're kind of screwing ourselves later when they do because there's no way to know where images came from after the fact. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

If they insist on licensing it under something different than public domain maybe that would make sense (haven't formed an opinion on it and currently would neither support nor oppose). However, there isn't much of a difference between CCBY and public domain (c:Template:PD-algorithm) and if the image was edited extensively then setting a license different to PD I think can make sense even outside UK. I don't think it can cause much of a problem because most people who upload AI images would be fine if the license was changed from CCBY to PD and very few AI images from others were uploaded without explicit consent of the prompter. Here is how one of the larges media orgs in Germany summarizes things btw (translated): Legal experts agree that AI-generated works do not normally have an author in the legal sense, says lawyer Joerg Heidrich, who also advises AI companies: “For the user, this means that they can freely use an AI-generated image and post it on their website, for example - but on the other hand, anyone else can do the same with the same image.” To add there is that we're not actually talking about "AI-generated works" for a large part such as the example images above (esp the third): large parts have been AI-generated but they are combined and edited quite extensively. To be precise, those are works made using AI-generated components. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Prototyperspective: We're kind of getting off track here, but the problem with CCBY licenses is that they have extra requirements like attribution that wouldn't be necessary if the images are PD. Plus at the end of the day AI generated images are "public domain" and that's because there's no author. If someone licenses an AI generated image as CCBY then it insinuates they created image when they didn't. Since as you say, a lot of countries don't think there's an author to AI generated works. Really, it's kind of licensing laundering and I doubt most AI generated images on Commons have been edited enough to be copyrightable. Although I don't really care if ones that have been are licensed as CCBY but I don't think every image should be by default and regardless of any editing. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

 Comment: From enwiki: "We have decided that, subject to common sense and with a number of exceptions, most images wholly generated by AI should not be used on en.wiki. Obvious exceptions include articles about AI, and articles about notable AI-generated images." We don't need to adopt every enwiki rule, but this makes a lot of sense to me. This should probably be an RFC here on Wikidata; in the mean time I would recommend restraint in this sort of activity. ArthurPSmith (talk) 23:30, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Request for Removal of Unauthorised Wikidata Items Created Without Consent

Dear Wikidata Admins,

I’m Mohammad Owais Khan, requesting the removal of the following items created without my knowledge or consent:

These entries were made by third parties, violate Wikidata’s Terms of Use (Section 4), and infringe on my privacy rights. They are preventing me from creating an accurate and authorized item about myself.

Please consider this a formal request for deletion. I’m willing to verify my identity if needed.

Thank you, Mohammad Owais Khan

Imdowaiskhan (talk) 05:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

It looks like the items were already deleted back in February. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:45, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Dear @Adamant1,

I am currently unable to create a new wiki item because a previous unauthorized version existed. Each time I'd attempt to recreate it, an admin deletes the page stating that it is a recreation. I believe this is preventing the addition of a legitimate and properly maintained entry. Therefore, I kindly request that either the item be created on my behalf so I can edit and manage it accordingly, or that I be granted permission to create the new item without it being flagged as a recreation. Imdowaiskhan (talk) 05:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Hhhhmmm, I don't know what the deal with that is. Probably an administrator should comment but it looks like there's been 5 items based on you that were all deleted. So probably you should just drop it and move on. The whole claim that the current items are inaccurate doesn't hold water if all of them were deleted. Non-exiting items obviously can't infringe your privacy rights or whatever. The more important thing is why you feel the need to have an item for yourself on here. Going by the repeated deletions of previous items, it doesn't seem like you do. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Dear @Adamant1,

I understand the concern regarding previous deletions, but those were likely unauthorized or incorrectly created. I’m now requesting the creation of a properly sourced and guideline-compliant Wikidata item.

All my immediate family members already have Wikidata entries, and my father is a notable senior advocate. I believe I meet the notability criteria as a YouTuber and founder of a creative agency with a verifiable public presence.

I’m not looking to bypass any rules—just to ensure accurate information is fairly represented. I’d appreciate if the item could be created or if I could be allowed to create it in accordance with Wikidata’s standards. Imdowaiskhan (talk) 06:15, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by unauthorized. Obviously we haven't contacted, and don't need to contact, the several millions of humans that have Wikidata items about them. Ainali (talk) 06:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Dear @Ainali,

By “unauthorized,” I refer to prior entries created without my knowledge, potentially in violation of Wikidata's Living People policy, which requires accuracy, neutrality, and respect for individuals' privacy. Inaccurate or misleading information about a living person may also raise concerns under U.S. privacy and defamation laws, including principles derived from Tort Law (False Light, Defamation) and the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), which emphasizes the right to accurate and transparent personal data. Imdowaiskhan (talk) 06:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Please understand, they were made without my consent and often contain incomplete information. Because of their existence, my representative was unable to create an accurate entry on my behalf, as the entries would be deleted or flagged due to these existing ones. This is making it difficult to maintain control over the information associated with my name and ensure its accuracy. Imdowaiskhan (talk) 06:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Regarding any inaccuracies you are just speculating. More likely, the items were deleted as they were deemed not notable. And I reiterate: consent is not needed. I am sure >99.99% of all items about humans have lacked informed and explicit consent. Ainali (talk) 06:40, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Dear @Ainali

The issue pertains to my right to manage accurate information about myself. Due to the existing inaccurate entries, I am unable to create a proper and accurate entry. While I understand that consent is not a formal requirement for creating items, I assert my right to manage the data associated with my name. If these entries were made by others, they should either be corrected or removed, or the management of the item should be transferred to me. This is necessary to ensure the accuracy and integrity of my profile. Imdowaiskhan (talk) 06:44, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I have come here to report that the existing entries about me were created without my consent. These entries are inaccurate and prevent me from creating a proper Wikidata item for my knowledge panel. Instead of offering help, I have been engaged in unnecessary arguments. Imdowaiskhan (talk) 06:52, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

If I were to guess your just using the whole accuracy thing as an excuse to request the previously deleted items be recreated since you've clearly exhausted every other option. Otherwise you could contact the WMF foundations legal team if you genuinely think some law was violated, but I doubt they will care. But baring that you should probably just move on and accept that there isn't going to be an item about you on here. It sucks, but that's life. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Dear @Adamant1,

I understand your point of view, but I respectfully disagree. This is not merely about a deleted item—it's about ensuring fair representation and the ability to manage accurate information connected to my identity. The existing entries were created without my knowledge, contain inaccuracies, and are blocking the creation of a legitimate item that meets Wikidata’s own notability and verifiability standards.

I have every right to request correction or control over such content, especially when it affects my public representation. Referring me to the WMF legal team may be a formal route, but ideally, this should be resolved within the community through dialogue, fairness, and adherence to policy.

Telling someone to "just move on" when they are trying to assert their basic rights over their own identity isn’t constructive. I'm simply asking for what is reasonable and policy-compliant: either removal of misleading entries or the opportunity to manage an accurate one. Imdowaiskhan (talk) 06:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

You're making assumptions while I’m speaking seriously about something that directly affects me. Just because you have some authority or experience here doesn’t mean you should dismiss genuine concerns. Instead of offering help, you're circling around the issue.

I’ve clearly said that I had no knowledge of these previous entries. Now, I want to create a proper item about myself using reliable, verifiable sources—nothing against policy. That’s a fair and reasonable request.

It’s not about ego or entitlement, it’s about accuracy, fairness, and my right to represent myself correctly. A little understanding would go a long way. Imdowaiskhan (talk) 07:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Dear @Adamant1 Please allow me the chance to create a proper, accurate item about myself using reliable sources. I just want a fair opportunity to represent myself correctly. Imdowaiskhan (talk) 07:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Either removal of misleading entries or the opportunity to manage an accurate one. The items were removed. So there's nothing to see here. You certainly aren't entitled to having an item about you on here or any other website. That's why I said to move on. You have no argument because there isn't an item on here violating your privacy and there's no requirement that one exists. So your just wasting everyone's time at this point. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Isn’t it unfair that because of someone else’s actions, I’m now unable to create a Wikidata item about myself? Imdowaiskhan (talk) 07:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I have reliable sources—that’s why I want to create an item. Otherwise, why would I waste my time or yours? Imdowaiskhan (talk) 07:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

No because you wouldn't control the item even if your the one who created it. If anything this just insures that there won't be inaccurate information about you on here. But if there was an item anyone could edit it however they want anyway. At the end of the day it's better to not have an item then have one that you'd essentially have zero control over. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I’m not begging anyone to create an item for me. I’m simply explaining that whenever I try to make an item about myself—with proper sources—it gets flagged as a recreation of a previous entry I didn’t even know existed. That’s what’s unfair. I’ve come here honestly, with good intent, just asking for a fair chance to represent myself accurately. Imdowaiskhan (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

You’re taking my words in a completely different direction. You’re not understanding that on Wikidata, I can’t recreate an item once it’s been deleted—it will just get removed again. And I don’t have access to the previous item to add reliable sources and fix it. Please try to understand my point instead of getting defensive. Let’s talk calmly. Imdowaiskhan (talk) 07:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

You know very well that the item will be deleted without reason simply because it's marked as a recreation. So why should I suffer because of someone else’s mistake? Imdowaiskhan (talk) 07:15, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

If 5 previous entries for you were not considered notable, I think you need to accept you are not notable here. Vicarage (talk) 08:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I pointed out that it was created by someone without using reliable sources. If you check the reason for deletion, the admin only mentioned that it was a recreation of a previously deleted item. Do you have any proof that all the details and sources were accurate? The way you're responding seems quite childish. Imdowaiskhan (talk) 08:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

The first item, Q132147203, was deleted because of notability issues. You need to drop it. Otherwise don't be surprised if someone reports you to ANU for not dropping the stick. You've made your point. Repeating the same arguments over and over ad nauseum isn't going to do anything except piss people off. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:43, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Humanity left the chat 👍🏻 Imdowaiskhan (talk) 08:48, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I only requested a chance because all the mistakes were made by someone else. Why should I have to suffer for someone else's errors? Imdowaiskhan (talk) 08:16, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

"Each time I attempt to recreate it, an admin deletes the page stating that it is a recreation."? So you admit that you created multiple accounts like VST0GT, V39G3 & VS0GT to evade a block and to recreate items? Deleted the remaining items and blocked the ip space used. Multichill (talk) 14:46, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Dear @Multichill,

Each time I’d attempt to recreate it" was intended to reflect a hypothetical scenario, not an actual repeated action. The original wording mistakenly used "I" instead of "I’d", which may have caused a misunderstanding. This was an unintentional error and I hope this clarification resolves any confusion.

I did not create the item because I saw that recreating deleted items is not allowed according to the rules. Imdowaiskhan (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

The premise of this request is ill-conceived, as it requests the deletion of already-deleted items in order to permit the creation of yet another one. That's not how we do things here. If you think that Wikidata should have an item on this entity, then you need to argue for its undeletion instead. Such a request should focus on establishing why the entity meets our notability criteria. See also Wikidata:Guide to requests for undeletion.

Your arguments about accuracy, privacy, control, and consent have no bearing on that issue, and I advise you to drop them.

We do not encourage people to create items about themselves, as they have an obvious conflict of interest, tend to have difficulty in assessing notability, and want to exercise control.

We strongly discourage people from recreating previously-deleted item. This is treated as an abuse of the project.

If you are blocked, then this means that you are not allowed to access our servers. Creating a new account to evade a block is treated as a serious abuse of the project, and may be a criminal offense in some jurisdictions.

Relevant items: Q132147203 (XM594), Q133934168 (MrPrimez), Q132454858 (V39G3), Q133717746 (V39G3), Q133890000 (VS0GT). CC deleting admins @Ymblanter Bovlb (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay, Could you please let me know what is required from me as proof of notability for the undeletion of a Wikidata item? Imdowaiskhan (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Dear @Bovlb, how i can appeal for that? Imdowaiskhan (talk) 16:51, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Are you able to read the two documents I linked above? Bovlb (talk) 16:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)