###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels:['no_consensus', 'delete', 'keep', 'comment', 'merge', 'redirect'] : ###Input:  Q126365310: DEIDetected (Q126365310) : website : ( delete | history | links | entity usage | logs | discussion ) No wiki links. Also see the related Project chat section , though that relates to both the page and the linking of the website via properties.
-- Daisy Blue ( talk ) 12:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC) All right, first of all, this is not Wikipedia . Please avoid citing various policies and random talk pages of other users from Wikipedia. Wikidata is an independent (completely different) project, it does not depend on Wikipedia (nor should it) and there are no lists of recommended/unrecommended sources. It also does not evaluate sources based on the authors of articles, and certainly not on the personal opinion of enwiki editors . When you are providing references on Wikidata, you are using common sense, not policies from the English Wikipedia . Even in cases where (according to your claim) the sources are unreliable, it can be very useful to know which source was used for a particular assertion. The fact that I have provided references describing the subject here is already good thing. As for your complaint about the third source (iXBT), it is more than reliable, it is also used as a separate property . You made a request for deletion due to lack of references, now they have been provided (one of which is more than reliable), the subject is described by these independent sources and WD:N criteria are met, so your complaints are now completely unjustified. All right, first of all, this is not Wikipedia . Please avoid citing various policies and random talk pages of other users from Wikipedia. Wikidata is an independent (completely different) project, it does not depend on Wikipedia (nor should it) and there are no lists of recommended/unrecommended sources. It also does not evaluate sources based on the authors of articles, and certainly not on the personal opinion of enwiki editors . When you are providing references on Wikidata, you are using common sense, not policies from the English Wikipedia . Even in cases where (according to your claim) the sources are unreliable, it can be very useful to know which source was used for a particular assertion. The fact that I have provided references describing the subject here is already good thing. As for your complaint about the third source (iXBT), it is more than reliable, it is also used as a separate property . You made a request for deletion due to lack of references, now they have been provided (one of which is more than reliable), the subject is described by these independent sources and WD:N criteria are met, so your complaints are now completely unjustified. All right, first of all, this is not Wikipedia . Please avoid citing various policies and random talk pages of other users from Wikipedia. Wikidata is an independent (completely different) project, it does not depend on Wikipedia (nor should it) and there are no lists of recommended/unrecommended sources. It also does not evaluate sources based on the authors of articles, and certainly not on the personal opinion of enwiki editors . When you are providing references on Wikidata, you are using common sense, not policies from the English Wikipedia . Even in cases where (according to your claim) the sources are unreliable, it can be very useful to know which source was used for a particular assertion. The fact that I have provided references describing the subject here is already good thing. As for your complaint about the third source (iXBT), it is more than reliable, it is also used as a separate property . You made a request for deletion due to lack of references, now they have been provided (one of which is more than reliable), the subject is described by these independent sources and WD:N criteria are met, so your complaints are now completely unjustified. Regarding described at URL (P973) . This property, if anything, is used for available sources that describe an subject. If you don't like described at URL so much, I can replace it with the other one exact match (P2888) and it won't make a difference. I can also not only replace these sources with another property, but also add them as references for some statements, which has already been done . Regarding described at URL (P973) . This property, if anything, is used for available sources that describe an subject. If you don't like described at URL so much, I can replace it with the other one exact match (P2888) and it won't make a difference. I can also not only replace these sources with another property, but also add them as references for some statements, which has already been done . Regarding described at URL (P973) . This property, if anything, is used for available sources that describe an subject. If you don't like described at URL so much, I can replace it with the other one exact match (P2888) and it won't make a difference. I can also not only replace these sources with another property, but also add them as references for some statements, which has already been done . By the way, I see that you've started reverting my quite valid edits en masse. I see this as an attempt to remove a source you disagree with (same applies for Sweet Baby Inc detected (Q124830722) created by @ Trade ). For my part, I find it quite useful, since this database has information on DEI consulting companies that have contributed to a particular game. For Wikidata, this database is useful for structured data because it also provides information on the developers and publishers for a particular game. What's wrong with it I don't understand. It's a video game database like the others and I think it has the right to be used as a source. Removing valid statements and reverting edits just because a given source is not reliable for enwiki seems completely unreasonable to me, and I'm completely perplexed, since Wikidata is a separate project from Wikipedia. I strongly recommend that you revert your edits. By the way, I see that you've started reverting my quite valid edits en masse. I see this as an attempt to remove a source you disagree with (same applies for Sweet Baby Inc detected (Q124830722) created by @ Trade ). For my part, I find it quite useful, since this database has information on DEI consulting companies that have contributed to a particular game. For Wikidata, this database is useful for structured data because it also provides information on the developers and publishers for a particular game. What's wrong with it I don't understand. It's a video game database like the others and I think it has the right to be used as a source. Removing valid statements and reverting edits just because a given source is not reliable for enwiki seems completely unreasonable to me, and I'm completely perplexed, since Wikidata is a separate project from Wikipedia. I strongly recommend that you revert your edits. By the way, I see that you've started reverting my quite valid edits en masse. I see this as an attempt to remove a source you disagree with (same applies for Sweet Baby Inc detected (Q124830722) created by @ Trade ). For my part, I find it quite useful, since this database has information on DEI consulting companies that have contributed to a particular game. For Wikidata, this database is useful for structured data because it also provides information on the developers and publishers for a particular game. What's wrong with it I don't understand. It's a video game database like the others and I think it has the right to be used as a source. Removing valid statements and reverting edits just because a given source is not reliable for enwiki seems completely unreasonable to me, and I'm completely perplexed, since Wikidata is a separate project from Wikipedia. I strongly recommend that you revert your edits. I also noticed that you are already removing reliable sources such as USgamer for no reason, see 1 and 2 . Why do you do that? What's wrong with that source? Why do you think you have the right to remove valid sources that were added by other users who spent their own precious time searching for and adding them? I honestly don't understand what's going on here. Regards Kirilloparma ( talk ) 02:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC) The language you are using to define described at URL as being merely for "available sources" is not in line with its actual Wikidata definition that asks for reliable sources. On Notability , which is the only thing to consider in the context of this talk page, DEIDetected undoubtedly fails to meet point 1 (there are no wiki links) and point 3 (no structural need, as its not used or linked to). Point 2 asks that there are "serious and publicly available references", which is what I addressed. You could dismiss the points made by the Wikipedia editors just because they're on Wikipedia, but I didn't see a lot of value in repeating their valid assessment of The Shortcut being a Slack blog (click on the article author) or the point on Retro-Replay being a "[blog] with no reputation", which is apparent even from a quick look at the Retro-Replay Instagram page with " I love retro gaming and so should you." as the bio (emphasis mine). On IXBT, you're not really addressing the issue of AI news being unreliable by referring to the fact that Wikidata uses the site for purposes other than it being a reliable / serious source. It's the same kind of logical fallacy as saying that because Wikidata has properties that link to other wikis, the information from those wikis is a reliable / serious source. That being unacceptable is specifically addressed by Help:Sources#Different_types_of_sources . On the rest, I'd suggest moving your comment on the described at URL reverting to the Project chat page and your comment on USGamer to the Dustborn talk page (which contains my explanation), as those have no relation to whether a page is notable. I will respond via those if you do. Daisy Blue ( talk ) 10:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC) Also, bigbaddice.pl, the fourth source you added after my reply has every characteristic of a group blog, which would make it self-published and not reliable . Daisy Blue ( talk ) 11:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC) > The language you are using to define described at URL as being merely for "available sources" is not in line with its actual Wikidata definition that asks for reliable sources. I'm sorry, what kind of "definition" are you talking about? Why are you even looking at a property discussion pages with outdated descriptions? On the property itself , the description says " item is described at the following URL ". If anything, the outdated description should be read all the way to the end. The outdated description This is to be used to provide links to reliable external resources that are not the item's official website, when no relevant "authority control" property exists . The sources I provided are not the item's official website and no properties (separate for news) exist for them on Wikidata. Meanwhile the current description, which is more or less available in many languages, is item is described at the following URL . Then what is the problem and what is this complaint against me? You asked for references describing the subject and I provided them as soon as I could. The subject is described by these independent references, that is, those references that are not directly or indirectly related to the creator of the website? Yes. Are the WD:N criteria met? Yes. I also noticed that you are already removing reliable sources such as USgamer for no reason, see 1 and 2 . Why do you do that? What's wrong with that source? Why do you think you have the right to remove valid sources that were added by other users who spent their own precious time searching for and adding them? I honestly don't understand what's going on here. Regards Kirilloparma ( talk ) 02:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC) The language you are using to define described at URL as being merely for "available sources" is not in line with its actual Wikidata definition that asks for reliable sources. On Notability , which is the only thing to consider in the context of this talk page, DEIDetected undoubtedly fails to meet point 1 (there are no wiki links) and point 3 (no structural need, as its not used or linked to). Point 2 asks that there are "serious and publicly available references", which is what I addressed. You could dismiss the points made by the Wikipedia editors just because they're on Wikipedia, but I didn't see a lot of value in repeating their valid assessment of The Shortcut being a Slack blog (click on the article author) or the point on Retro-Replay being a "[blog] with no reputation", which is apparent even from a quick look at the Retro-Replay Instagram page with " I love retro gaming and so should you." as the bio (emphasis mine). On IXBT, you're not really addressing the issue of AI news being unreliable by referring to the fact that Wikidata uses the site for purposes other than it being a reliable / serious source. It's the same kind of logical fallacy as saying that because Wikidata has properties that link to other wikis, the information from those wikis is a reliable / serious source. That being unacceptable is specifically addressed by Help:Sources#Different_types_of_sources . On the rest, I'd suggest moving your comment on the described at URL reverting to the Project chat page and your comment on USGamer to the Dustborn talk page (which contains my explanation), as those have no relation to whether a page is notable. I will respond via those if you do. Daisy Blue ( talk ) 10:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC) Also, bigbaddice.pl, the fourth source you added after my reply has every characteristic of a group blog, which would make it self-published and not reliable . Daisy Blue ( talk ) 11:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC) > The language you are using to define described at URL as being merely for "available sources" is not in line with its actual Wikidata definition that asks for reliable sources. I'm sorry, what kind of "definition" are you talking about? Why are you even looking at a property discussion pages with outdated descriptions? On the property itself , the description says " item is described at the following URL ". If anything, the outdated description should be read all the way to the end. The outdated description This is to be used to provide links to reliable external resources that are not the item's official website, when no relevant "authority control" property exists . The sources I provided are not the item's official website and no properties (separate for news) exist for them on Wikidata. Meanwhile the current description, which is more or less available in many languages, is item is described at the following URL . Then what is the problem and what is this complaint against me? You asked for references describing the subject and I provided them as soon as I could. The subject is described by these independent references, that is, those references that are not directly or indirectly related to the creator of the website? Yes. Are the WD:N criteria met? Yes. I also noticed that you are already removing reliable sources such as USgamer for no reason, see 1 and 2 . Why do you do that? What's wrong with that source? Why do you think you have the right to remove valid sources that were added by other users who spent their own precious time searching for and adding them? I honestly don't understand what's going on here. Regards Kirilloparma ( talk ) 02:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC) The language you are using to define described at URL as being merely for "available sources" is not in line with its actual Wikidata definition that asks for reliable sources. On Notability , which is the only thing to consider in the context of this talk page, DEIDetected undoubtedly fails to meet point 1 (there are no wiki links) and point 3 (no structural need, as its not used or linked to). Point 2 asks that there are "serious and publicly available references", which is what I addressed. You could dismiss the points made by the Wikipedia editors just because they're on Wikipedia, but I didn't see a lot of value in repeating their valid assessment of The Shortcut being a Slack blog (click on the article author) or the point on Retro-Replay being a "[blog] with no reputation", which is apparent even from a quick look at the Retro-Replay Instagram page with " I love retro gaming and so should you." as the bio (emphasis mine). On IXBT, you're not really addressing the issue of AI news being unreliable by referring to the fact that Wikidata uses the site for purposes other than it being a reliable / serious source. It's the same kind of logical fallacy as saying that because Wikidata has properties that link to other wikis, the information from those wikis is a reliable / serious source. That being unacceptable is specifically addressed by Help:Sources#Different_types_of_sources . On the rest, I'd suggest moving your comment on the described at URL reverting to the Project chat page and your comment on USGamer to the Dustborn talk page (which contains my explanation), as those have no relation to whether a page is notable. I will respond via those if you do. Daisy Blue ( talk ) 10:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC) Also, bigbaddice.pl, the fourth source you added after my reply has every characteristic of a group blog, which would make it self-published and not reliable . Daisy Blue ( talk ) 11:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC) > The language you are using to define described at URL as being merely for "available sources" is not in line with its actual Wikidata definition that asks for reliable sources. I'm sorry, what kind of "definition" are you talking about? Why are you even looking at a property discussion pages with outdated descriptions? On the property itself , the description says " item is described at the following URL ". If anything, the outdated description should be read all the way to the end. The outdated description This is to be used to provide links to reliable external resources that are not the item's official website, when no relevant "authority control" property exists . The sources I provided are not the item's official website and no properties (separate for news) exist for them on Wikidata. Meanwhile the current description, which is more or less available in many languages, is item is described at the following URL . Then what is the problem and what is this complaint against me? You asked for references describing the subject and I provided them as soon as I could. The subject is described by these independent references, that is, those references that are not directly or indirectly related to the creator of the website? Yes. Are the WD:N criteria met? Yes. The language you are using to define described at URL as being merely for "available sources" is not in line with its actual Wikidata definition that asks for reliable sources. On Notability , which is the only thing to consider in the context of this talk page, DEIDetected undoubtedly fails to meet point 1 (there are no wiki links) and point 3 (no structural need, as its not used or linked to). Point 2 asks that there are "serious and publicly available references", which is what I addressed. You could dismiss the points made by the Wikipedia editors just because they're on Wikipedia, but I didn't see a lot of value in repeating their valid assessment of The Shortcut being a Slack blog (click on the article author) or the point on Retro-Replay being a "[blog] with no reputation", which is apparent even from a quick look at the Retro-Replay Instagram page with " I love retro gaming and so should you." as the bio (emphasis mine). On IXBT, you're not really addressing the issue of AI news being unreliable by referring to the fact that Wikidata uses the site for purposes other than it being a reliable / serious source. It's the same kind of logical fallacy as saying that because Wikidata has properties that link to other wikis, the information from those wikis is a reliable / serious source. That being unacceptable is specifically addressed by Help:Sources#Different_types_of_sources . On the rest, I'd suggest moving your comment on the described at URL reverting to the Project chat page and your comment on USGamer to the Dustborn talk page (which contains my explanation), as those have no relation to whether a page is notable. I will respond via those if you do. Daisy Blue ( talk ) 10:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC) Also, bigbaddice.pl, the fourth source you added after my reply has every characteristic of a group blog, which would make it self-published and not reliable . Daisy Blue ( talk ) 11:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC) > The language you are using to define described at URL as being merely for "available sources" is not in line with its actual Wikidata definition that asks for reliable sources. I'm sorry, what kind of "definition" are you talking about? Why are you even looking at a property discussion pages with outdated descriptions? On the property itself , the description says " item is described at the following URL ". If anything, the outdated description should be read all the way to the end. The outdated description This is to be used to provide links to reliable external resources that are not the item's official website, when no relevant "authority control" property exists . The sources I provided are not the item's official website and no properties (separate for news) exist for them on Wikidata. Meanwhile the current description, which is more or less available in many languages, is item is described at the following URL . Then what is the problem and what is this complaint against me? You asked for references describing the subject and I provided them as soon as I could. The subject is described by these independent references, that is, those references that are not directly or indirectly related to the creator of the website? Yes. Are the WD:N criteria met? Yes. > The language you are using to define described at URL as being merely for "available sources" is not in line with its actual Wikidata definition that asks for reliable sources. I also noticed that you are already removing reliable sources such as USgamer for no reason, see 1 and 2 . Why do you do that? What's wrong with that source? Why do you think you have the right to remove valid sources that were added by other users who spent their own precious time searching for and adding them? I honestly don't understand what's going on here. Regards Kirilloparma ( talk ) 02:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC) The language you are using to define described at URL as being merely for "available sources" is not in line with its actual Wikidata definition that asks for reliable sources. On Notability , which is the only thing to consider in the context of this talk page, DEIDetected undoubtedly fails to meet point 1 (there are no wiki links) and point 3 (no structural need, as its not used or linked to). Point 2 asks that there are "serious and publicly available references", which is what I addressed. You could dismiss the points made by the Wikipedia editors just because they're on Wikipedia, but I didn't see a lot of value in repeating their valid assessment of The Shortcut being a Slack blog (click on the article author) or the point on Retro-Replay being a "[blog] with no reputation", which is apparent even from a quick look at the Retro-Replay Instagram page with " I love retro gaming and so should you." as the bio (emphasis mine). On IXBT, you're not really addressing the issue of AI news being unreliable by referring to the fact that Wikidata uses the site for purposes other than it being a reliable / serious source. It's the same kind of logical fallacy as saying that because Wikidata has properties that link to other wikis, the information from those wikis is a reliable / serious source. That being unacceptable is specifically addressed by Help:Sources#Different_types_of_sources . On the rest, I'd suggest moving your comment on the described at URL reverting to the Project chat page and your comment on USGamer to the Dustborn talk page (which contains my explanation), as those have no relation to whether a page is notable. I will respond via those if you do. Daisy Blue ( talk ) 10:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC) Also, bigbaddice.pl, the fourth source you added after my reply has every characteristic of a group blog, which would make it self-published and not reliable . Daisy Blue ( talk ) 11:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC) > The language you are using to define described at URL as being merely for "available sources" is not in line with its actual Wikidata definition that asks for reliable sources. I'm sorry, what kind of "definition" are you talking about? Why are you even looking at a property discussion pages with outdated descriptions? On the property itself , the description says " item is described at the following URL ". If anything, the outdated description should be read all the way to the end. The outdated description This is to be used to provide links to reliable external resources that are not the item's official website, when no relevant "authority control" property exists . The sources I provided are not the item's official website and no properties (separate for news) exist for them on Wikidata. Meanwhile the current description, which is more or less available in many languages, is item is described at the following URL . Then what is the problem and what is this complaint against me? You asked for references describing the subject and I provided them as soon as I could. The subject is described by these independent references, that is, those references that are not directly or indirectly related to the creator of the website? Yes. Are the WD:N criteria met? Yes. I also noticed that you are already removing reliable sources such as USgamer for no reason, see 1 and 2 . Why do you do that? What's wrong with that source? Why do you think you have the right to remove valid sources that were added by other users who spent their own precious time searching for and adding them? I honestly don't understand what's going on here. Regards Kirilloparma ( talk ) 02:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC) The language you are using to define described at URL as being merely for "available sources" is not in line with its actual Wikidata definition that asks for reliable sources. On Notability , which is the only thing to consider in the context of this talk page, DEIDetected undoubtedly fails to meet point 1 (there are no wiki links) and point 3 (no structural need, as its not used or linked to). Point 2 asks that there are "serious and publicly available references", which is what I addressed. You could dismiss the points made by the Wikipedia editors just because they're on Wikipedia, but I didn't see a lot of value in repeating their valid assessment of The Shortcut being a Slack blog (click on the article author) or the point on Retro-Replay being a "[blog] with no reputation", which is apparent even from a quick look at the Retro-Replay Instagram page with " I love retro gaming and so should you." as the bio (emphasis mine). On IXBT, you're not really addressing the issue of AI news being unreliable by referring to the fact that Wikidata uses the site for purposes other than it being a reliable / serious source. It's the same kind of logical fallacy as saying that because Wikidata has properties that link to other wikis, the information from those wikis is a reliable / serious source. That being unacceptable is specifically addressed by Help:Sources#Different_types_of_sources . On the rest, I'd suggest moving your comment on the described at URL reverting to the Project chat page and your comment on USGamer to the Dustborn talk page (which contains my explanation), as those have no relation to whether a page is notable. I will respond via those if you do. Daisy Blue ( talk ) 10:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC) Also, bigbaddice.pl, the fourth source you added after my reply has every characteristic of a group blog, which would make it self-published and not reliable . Daisy Blue ( talk ) 11:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC) > The language you are using to define described at URL as being merely for "available sources" is not in line with its actual Wikidata definition that asks for reliable sources. I'm sorry, what kind of "definition" are you talking about? Why are you even looking at a property discussion pages with outdated descriptions? On the property itself , the description says " item is described at the following URL ". If anything, the outdated description should be read all the way to the end. The outdated description This is to be used to provide links to reliable external resources that are not the item's official website, when no relevant "authority control" property exists . The sources I provided are not the item's official website and no properties (separate for news) exist for them on Wikidata. Meanwhile the current description, which is more or less available in many languages, is item is described at the following URL . Then what is the problem and what is this complaint against me? You asked for references describing the subject and I provided them as soon as I could. The subject is described by these independent references, that is, those references that are not directly or indirectly related to the creator of the website? Yes. Are the WD:N criteria met? Yes. The language you are using to define described at URL as being merely for "available sources" is not in line with its actual Wikidata definition that asks for reliable sources. On Notability , which is the only thing to consider in the context of this talk page, DEIDetected undoubtedly fails to meet point 1 (there are no wiki links) and point 3 (no structural need, as its not used or linked to). Point 2 asks that there are "serious and publicly available references", which is what I addressed. You could dismiss the points made by the Wikipedia editors just because they're on Wikipedia, but I didn't see a lot of value in repeating their valid assessment of The Shortcut being a Slack blog (click on the article author) or the point on Retro-Replay being a "[blog] with no reputation", which is apparent even from a quick look at the Retro-Replay Instagram page with " I love retro gaming and so should you." as the bio (emphasis mine). On IXBT, you're not really addressing the issue of AI news being unreliable by referring to the fact that Wikidata uses the site for purposes other than it being a reliable / serious source. It's the same kind of logical fallacy as saying that because Wikidata has properties that link to other wikis, the information from those wikis is a reliable / serious source. That being unacceptable is specifically addressed by Help:Sources#Different_types_of_sources . On the rest, I'd suggest moving your comment on the described at URL reverting to the Project chat page and your comment on USGamer to the Dustborn talk page (which contains my explanation), as those have no relation to whether a page is notable. I will respond via those if you do. Daisy Blue ( talk ) 10:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC) Also, bigbaddice.pl, the fourth source you added after my reply has every characteristic of a group blog, which would make it self-published and not reliable . Daisy Blue ( talk ) 11:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC) > The language you are using to define described at URL as being merely for "available sources" is not in line with its actual Wikidata definition that asks for reliable sources. I'm sorry, what kind of "definition" are you talking about? Why are you even looking at a property discussion pages with outdated descriptions? On the property itself , the description says " item is described at the following URL ". If anything, the outdated description should be read all the way to the end. The outdated description This is to be used to provide links to reliable external resources that are not the item's official website, when no relevant "authority control" property exists . The sources I provided are not the item's official website and no properties (separate for news) exist for them on Wikidata. Meanwhile the current description, which is more or less available in many languages, is item is described at the following URL . Then what is the problem and what is this complaint against me? You asked for references describing the subject and I provided them as soon as I could. The subject is described by these independent references, that is, those references that are not directly or indirectly related to the creator of the website? Yes. Are the WD:N criteria met? Yes. > The language you are using to define described at URL as being merely for "available sources" is not in line with its actual Wikidata definition that asks for reliable sources. I also noticed that you are already removing reliable sources such as USgamer for no reason, see 1 and 2 . Why do you do that? What's wrong with that source? Why do you think you have the right to remove valid sources that were added by other users who spent their own precious time searching for and adding them? I honestly don't understand what's going on here. Regards Kirilloparma ( talk ) 02:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC) The language you are using to define described at URL as being merely for "available sources" is not in line with its actual Wikidata definition that asks for reliable sources. On Notability , which is the only thing to consider in the context of this talk page, DEIDetected undoubtedly fails to meet point 1 (there are no wiki links) and point 3 (no structural need, as its not used or linked to). Point 2 asks that there are "serious and publicly available references", which is what I addressed. You could dismiss the points made by the Wikipedia editors just because they're on Wikipedia, but I didn't see a lot of value in repeating their valid assessment of The Shortcut being a Slack blog (click on the article author) or the point on Retro-Replay being a "[blog] with no reputation", which is apparent even from a quick look at the Retro-Replay Instagram page with " I love retro gaming and so should you." as the bio (emphasis mine). On IXBT, you're not really addressing the issue of AI news being unreliable by referring to the fact that Wikidata uses the site for purposes other than it being a reliable / serious source. It's the same kind of logical fallacy as saying that because Wikidata has properties that link to other wikis, the information from those wikis is a reliable / serious source. That being unacceptable is specifically addressed by Help:Sources#Different_types_of_sources . On the rest, I'd suggest moving your comment on the described at URL reverting to the Project chat page and your comment on USGamer to the Dustborn talk page (which contains my explanation), as those have no relation to whether a page is notable. I will respond via those if you do. Daisy Blue ( talk ) 10:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC) Also, bigbaddice.pl, the fourth source you added after my reply has every characteristic of a group blog, which would make it self-published and not reliable . Daisy Blue ( talk ) 11:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC) > The language you are using to define described at URL as being merely for "available sources" is not in line with its actual Wikidata definition that asks for reliable sources. I'm sorry, what kind of "definition" are you talking about? Why are you even looking at a property discussion pages with outdated descriptions? On the property itself , the description says " item is described at the following URL ". If anything, the outdated description should be read all the way to the end. The outdated description This is to be used to provide links to reliable external resources that are not the item's official website, when no relevant "authority control" property exists . The sources I provided are not the item's official website and no properties (separate for news) exist for them on Wikidata. Meanwhile the current description, which is more or less available in many languages, is item is described at the following URL . Then what is the problem and what is this complaint against me? You asked for references describing the subject and I provided them as soon as I could. The subject is described by these independent references, that is, those references that are not directly or indirectly related to the creator of the website? Yes. Are the WD:N criteria met? Yes. The language you are using to define described at URL as being merely for "available sources" is not in line with its actual Wikidata definition that asks for reliable sources. On Notability , which is the only thing to consider in the context of this talk page, DEIDetected undoubtedly fails to meet point 1 (there are no wiki links) and point 3 (no structural need, as its not used or linked to). Point 2 asks that there are "serious and publicly available references", which is what I addressed. You could dismiss the points made by the Wikipedia editors just because they're on Wikipedia, but I didn't see a lot of value in repeating their valid assessment of The Shortcut being a Slack blog (click on the article author) or the point on Retro-Replay being a "[blog] with no reputation", which is apparent even from a quick look at the Retro-Replay Instagram page with " I love retro gaming and so should you." as the bio (emphasis mine). On IXBT, you're not really addressing the issue of AI news being unreliable by referring to the fact that Wikidata uses the site for purposes other than it being a reliable / serious source. It's the same kind of logical fallacy as saying that because Wikidata has properties that link to other wikis, the information from those wikis is a reliable / serious source. That being unacceptable is specifically addressed by Help:Sources#Different_types_of_sources . On the rest, I'd suggest moving your comment on the described at URL reverting to the Project chat page and your comment on USGamer to the Dustborn talk page (which contains my explanation), as those have no relation to whether a page is notable. I will respond via those if you do. Daisy Blue ( talk ) 10:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC) Also, bigbaddice.pl, the fourth source you added after my reply has every characteristic of a group blog, which would make it self-published and not reliable . Daisy Blue ( talk ) 11:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC) > The language you are using to define described at URL as being merely for "available sources" is not in line with its actual Wikidata definition that asks for reliable sources. I'm sorry, what kind of "definition" are you talking about? Why are you even looking at a property discussion pages with outdated descriptions? On the property itself , the description says " item is described at the following URL ". If anything, the outdated description should be read all the way to the end. The outdated description This is to be used to provide links to reliable external resources that are not the item's official website, when no relevant "authority control" property exists . The sources I provided are not the item's official website and no properties (separate for news) exist for them on Wikidata. Meanwhile the current description, which is more or less available in many languages, is item is described at the following URL . Then what is the problem and what is this complaint against me? You asked for references describing the subject and I provided them as soon as I could. The subject is described by these independent references, that is, those references that are not directly or indirectly related to the creator of the website? Yes. Are the WD:N criteria met? Yes. > The language you are using to define described at URL as being merely for "available sources" is not in line with its actual Wikidata definition that asks for reliable sources. The language you are using to define described at URL as being merely for "available sources" is not in line with its actual Wikidata definition that asks for reliable sources. On Notability , which is the only thing to consider in the context of this talk page, DEIDetected undoubtedly fails to meet point 1 (there are no wiki links) and point 3 (no structural need, as its not used or linked to). Point 2 asks that there are "serious and publicly available references", which is what I addressed. You could dismiss the points made by the Wikipedia editors just because they're on Wikipedia, but I didn't see a lot of value in repeating their valid assessment of The Shortcut being a Slack blog (click on the article author) or the point on Retro-Replay being a "[blog] with no reputation", which is apparent even from a quick look at the Retro-Replay Instagram page with " I love retro gaming and so should you." as the bio (emphasis mine). On IXBT, you're not really addressing the issue of AI news being unreliable by referring to the fact that Wikidata uses the site for purposes other than it being a reliable / serious source. It's the same kind of logical fallacy as saying that because Wikidata has properties that link to other wikis, the information from those wikis is a reliable / serious source. That being unacceptable is specifically addressed by Help:Sources#Different_types_of_sources . On the rest, I'd suggest moving your comment on the described at URL reverting to the Project chat page and your comment on USGamer to the Dustborn talk page (which contains my explanation), as those have no relation to whether a page is notable. I will respond via those if you do. Daisy Blue ( talk ) 10:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC) Also, bigbaddice.pl, the fourth source you added after my reply has every characteristic of a group blog, which would make it self-published and not reliable . Daisy Blue ( talk ) 11:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC) > The language you are using to define described at URL as being merely for "available sources" is not in line with its actual Wikidata definition that asks for reliable sources. I'm sorry, what kind of "definition" are you talking about? Why are you even looking at a property discussion pages with outdated descriptions? On the property itself , the description says " item is described at the following URL ". If anything, the outdated description should be read all the way to the end. The outdated description This is to be used to provide links to reliable external resources that are not the item's official website, when no relevant "authority control" property exists . The sources I provided are not the item's official website and no properties (separate for news) exist for them on Wikidata. Meanwhile the current description, which is more or less available in many languages, is item is described at the following URL . Then what is the problem and what is this complaint against me? You asked for references describing the subject and I provided them as soon as I could. The subject is described by these independent references, that is, those references that are not directly or indirectly related to the creator of the website? Yes. Are the WD:N criteria met? Yes. > The language you are using to define described at URL as being merely for "available sources" is not in line with its actual Wikidata definition that asks for reliable sources. > The language you are using to define described at URL as being merely for "available sources" is not in line with its actual Wikidata definition that asks for reliable sources. Once again, described at URL property is used for any independent sources that can describe the subject. Your complaints about the use of this property are absolutely unjustified and I remind you once again that this is not enwiki . There are no such strict requirements for sources (like reliable/unreliable sources) as you might think . The requirement of serious sources is usually applied to human-related items, which is completely reasonable. When you provide sources, you are guided by common sense, not enwiki policy. We are on Wikidata, it is a completely different project, it is independent and has its own rules . Once again: you submitted a request for deletion because there were no references, now they have been given (one of which is more than reliable), the subject is described by these independent sources and the WD:N criteria have been met, so your complaint is now completely unreasonable. Once again, described at URL property is used for any independent sources that can describe the subject. Your complaints about the use of this property are absolutely unjustified and I remind you once again that this is not enwiki . There are no such strict requirements for sources (like reliable/unreliable sources) as you might think . The requirement of serious sources is usually applied to human-related items, which is completely reasonable. When you provide sources, you are guided by common sense, not enwiki policy. We are on Wikidata, it is a completely different project, it is independent and has its own rules . Once again: you submitted a request for deletion because there were no references, now they have been given (one of which is more than reliable), the subject is described by these independent sources and the WD:N criteria have been met, so your complaint is now completely unreasonable. Once again, described at URL property is used for any independent sources that can describe the subject. Your complaints about the use of this property are absolutely unjustified and I remind you once again that this is not enwiki . There are no such strict requirements for sources (like reliable/unreliable sources) as you might think . The requirement of serious sources is usually applied to human-related items, which is completely reasonable. When you provide sources, you are guided by common sense, not enwiki policy. We are on Wikidata, it is a completely different project, it is independent and has its own rules . Once again: you submitted a request for deletion because there were no references, now they have been given (one of which is more than reliable), the subject is described by these independent sources and the WD:N criteria have been met, so your complaint is now completely unreasonable. Once again, described at URL property is used for any independent sources that can describe the subject. Your complaints about the use of this property are absolutely unjustified and I remind you once again that this is not enwiki . There are no such strict requirements for sources (like reliable/unreliable sources) as you might think . The requirement of serious sources is usually applied to human-related items, which is completely reasonable. When you provide sources, you are guided by common sense, not enwiki policy. We are on Wikidata, it is a completely different project, it is independent and has its own rules . Once again: you submitted a request for deletion because there were no references, now they have been given (one of which is more than reliable), the subject is described by these independent sources and the WD:N criteria have been met, so your complaint is now completely unreasonable. Once again, described at URL property is used for any independent sources that can describe the subject. Your complaints about the use of this property are absolutely unjustified and I remind you once again that this is not enwiki . There are no such strict requirements for sources (like reliable/unreliable sources) as you might think . The requirement of serious sources is usually applied to human-related items, which is completely reasonable. When you provide sources, you are guided by common sense, not enwiki policy. We are on Wikidata, it is a completely different project, it is independent and has its own rules . Once again: you submitted a request for deletion because there were no references, now they have been given (one of which is more than reliable), the subject is described by these independent sources and the WD:N criteria have been met, so your complaint is now completely unreasonable. Once again, described at URL property is used for any independent sources that can describe the subject. Your complaints about the use of this property are absolutely unjustified and I remind you once again that this is not enwiki . There are no such strict requirements for sources (like reliable/unreliable sources) as you might think . The requirement of serious sources is usually applied to human-related items, which is completely reasonable. When you provide sources, you are guided by common sense, not enwiki policy. We are on Wikidata, it is a completely different project, it is independent and has its own rules . Once again: you submitted a request for deletion because there were no references, now they have been given (one of which is more than reliable), the subject is described by these independent sources and the WD:N criteria have been met, so your complaint is now completely unreasonable. Once again, described at URL property is used for any independent sources that can describe the subject. Your complaints about the use of this property are absolutely unjustified and I remind you once again that this is not enwiki . There are no such strict requirements for sources (like reliable/unreliable sources) as you might think . The requirement of serious sources is usually applied to human-related items, which is completely reasonable. When you provide sources, you are guided by common sense, not enwiki policy. We are on Wikidata, it is a completely different project, it is independent and has its own rules . Once again: you submitted a request for deletion because there were no references, now they have been given (one of which is more than reliable), the subject is described by these independent sources and the WD:N criteria have been met, so your complaint is now completely unreasonable. Once again, described at URL property is used for any independent sources that can describe the subject. Your complaints about the use of this property are absolutely unjustified and I remind you once again that this is not enwiki . There are no such strict requirements for sources (like reliable/unreliable sources) as you might think . The requirement of serious sources is usually applied to human-related items, which is completely reasonable. When you provide sources, you are guided by common sense, not enwiki policy. We are on Wikidata, it is a completely different project, it is independent and has its own rules . Once again: you submitted a request for deletion because there were no references, now they have been given (one of which is more than reliable), the subject is described by these independent sources and the WD:N criteria have been met, so your complaint is now completely unreasonable. Once again, described at URL property is used for any independent sources that can describe the subject. Your complaints about the use of this property are absolutely unjustified and I remind you once again that this is not enwiki . There are no such strict requirements for sources (like reliable/unreliable sources) as you might think . The requirement of serious sources is usually applied to human-related items, which is completely reasonable. When you provide sources, you are guided by common sense, not enwiki policy. We are on Wikidata, it is a completely different project, it is independent and has its own rules . Once again: you submitted a request for deletion because there were no references, now they have been given (one of which is more than reliable), the subject is described by these independent sources and the WD:N criteria have been met, so your complaint is now completely unreasonable. Once again, described at URL property is used for any independent sources that can describe the subject. Your complaints about the use of this property are absolutely unjustified and I remind you once again that this is not enwiki . There are no such strict requirements for sources (like reliable/unreliable sources) as you might think . The requirement of serious sources is usually applied to human-related items, which is completely reasonable. When you provide sources, you are guided by common sense, not enwiki policy. We are on Wikidata, it is a completely different project, it is independent and has its own rules . Once again: you submitted a request for deletion because there were no references, now they have been given (one of which is more than reliable), the subject is described by these independent sources and the WD:N criteria have been met, so your complaint is now completely unreasonable. > On Notability, which is the only thing to consider in the context of this talk page, DEIDetected undoubtedly fails to meet point 1 (there are no wiki links) Please re-read WD:N carefully. It's even noted in bold. An item is acceptable if and only if it fulfills at least one of these two goals; that is, if it meets at least one of the three criteria below . One of the three does not mean that criterion 1 is needed here, it means that (at least) either 1, 2 or 3 are needed, not all three. In case you didn't know, an item can exist safely without criterion #1. Here's a good example. This item has a link to ruwiki, where the article is now set for deletion for obvious reasons, even if it will be eventually deleted, it does not mean that the item will be deleted over here, because it meets criterion #3, so your complaint is again not valid. > On Notability, which is the only thing to consider in the context of this talk page, DEIDetected undoubtedly fails to meet point 1 (there are no wiki links) Please re-read WD:N carefully. It's even noted in bold. An item is acceptable if and only if it fulfills at least one of these two goals; that is, if it meets at least one of the three criteria below . One of the three does not mean that criterion 1 is needed here, it means that (at least) either 1, 2 or 3 are needed, not all three. In case you didn't know, an item can exist safely without criterion #1. Here's a good example. This item has a link to ruwiki, where the article is now set for deletion for obvious reasons, even if it will be eventually deleted, it does not mean that the item will be deleted over here, because it meets criterion #3, so your complaint is again not valid. > On Notability, which is the only thing to consider in the context of this talk page, DEIDetected undoubtedly fails to meet point 1 (there are no wiki links) Please re-read WD:N carefully. It's even noted in bold. An item is acceptable if and only if it fulfills at least one of these two goals; that is, if it meets at least one of the three criteria below . One of the three does not mean that criterion 1 is needed here, it means that (at least) either 1, 2 or 3 are needed, not all three. In case you didn't know, an item can exist safely without criterion #1. Here's a good example. This item has a link to ruwiki, where the article is now set for deletion for obvious reasons, even if it will be eventually deleted, it does not mean that the item will be deleted over here, because it meets criterion #3, so your complaint is again not valid. > On Notability, which is the only thing to consider in the context of this talk page, DEIDetected undoubtedly fails to meet point 1 (there are no wiki links) Please re-read WD:N carefully. It's even noted in bold. An item is acceptable if and only if it fulfills at least one of these two goals; that is, if it meets at least one of the three criteria below . One of the three does not mean that criterion 1 is needed here, it means that (at least) either 1, 2 or 3 are needed, not all three. In case you didn't know, an item can exist safely without criterion #1. Here's a good example. This item has a link to ruwiki, where the article is now set for deletion for obvious reasons, even if it will be eventually deleted, it does not mean that the item will be deleted over here, because it meets criterion #3, so your complaint is again not valid. > On Notability, which is the only thing to consider in the context of this talk page, DEIDetected undoubtedly fails to meet point 1 (there are no wiki links) Please re-read WD:N carefully. It's even noted in bold. An item is acceptable if and only if it fulfills at least one of these two goals; that is, if it meets at least one of the three criteria below . One of the three does not mean that criterion 1 is needed here, it means that (at least) either 1, 2 or 3 are needed, not all three. > On Notability, which is the only thing to consider in the context of this talk page, DEIDetected undoubtedly fails to meet point 1 (there are no wiki links) Please re-read WD:N carefully. It's even noted in bold. An item is acceptable if and only if it fulfills at least one of these two goals; that is, if it meets at least one of the three criteria below . One of the three does not mean that criterion 1 is needed here, it means that (at least) either 1, 2 or 3 are needed, not all three. In case you didn't know, an item can exist safely without criterion #1. Here's a good example. This item has a link to ruwiki, where the article is now set for deletion for obvious reasons, even if it will be eventually deleted, it does not mean that the item will be deleted over here, because it meets criterion #3, so your complaint is again not valid. > On Notability, which is the only thing to consider in the context of this talk page, DEIDetected undoubtedly fails to meet point 1 (there are no wiki links) Please re-read WD:N carefully. It's even noted in bold. An item is acceptable if and only if it fulfills at least one of these two goals; that is, if it meets at least one of the three criteria below . One of the three does not mean that criterion 1 is needed here, it means that (at least) either 1, 2 or 3 are needed, not all three. In case you didn't know, an item can exist safely without criterion #1. Here's a good example. This item has a link to ruwiki, where the article is now set for deletion for obvious reasons, even if it will be eventually deleted, it does not mean that the item will be deleted over here, because it meets criterion #3, so your complaint is again not valid. > On Notability, which is the only thing to consider in the context of this talk page, DEIDetected undoubtedly fails to meet point 1 (there are no wiki links) Please re-read WD:N carefully. It's even noted in bold. An item is acceptable if and only if it fulfills at least one of these two goals; that is, if it meets at least one of the three criteria below . One of the three does not mean that criterion 1 is needed here, it means that (at least) either 1, 2 or 3 are needed, not all three. In case you didn't know, an item can exist safely without criterion #1. Here's a good example. This item has a link to ruwiki, where the article is now set for deletion for obvious reasons, even if it will be eventually deleted, it does not mean that the item will be deleted over here, because it meets criterion #3, so your complaint is again not valid. > On Notability, which is the only thing to consider in the context of this talk page, DEIDetected undoubtedly fails to meet point 1 (there are no wiki links) Please re-read WD:N carefully. It's even noted in bold. An item is acceptable if and only if it fulfills at least one of these two goals; that is, if it meets at least one of the three criteria below . One of the three does not mean that criterion 1 is needed here, it means that (at least) either 1, 2 or 3 are needed, not all three. > On Notability, which is the only thing to consider in the context of this talk page, DEIDetected undoubtedly fails to meet point 1 (there are no wiki links) Please re-read WD:N carefully. It's even noted in bold. An item is acceptable if and only if it fulfills at least one of these two goals; that is, if it meets at least one of the three criteria below . One of the three does not mean that criterion 1 is needed here, it means that (at least) either 1, 2 or 3 are needed, not all three. In case you didn't know, an item can exist safely without criterion #1. Here's a good example. This item has a link to ruwiki, where the article is now set for deletion for obvious reasons, even if it will be eventually deleted, it does not mean that the item will be deleted over here, because it meets criterion #3, so your complaint is again not valid. > On Notability, which is the only thing to consider in the context of this talk page, DEIDetected undoubtedly fails to meet point 1 (there are no wiki links) Please re-read WD:N carefully. It's even noted in bold. An item is acceptable if and only if it fulfills at least one of these two goals; that is, if it meets at least one of the three criteria below . One of the three does not mean that criterion 1 is needed here, it means that (at least) either 1, 2 or 3 are needed, not all three. In case you didn't know, an item can exist safely without criterion #1. Here's a good example. This item has a link to ruwiki, where the article is now set for deletion for obvious reasons, even if it will be eventually deleted, it does not mean that the item will be deleted over here, because it meets criterion #3, so your complaint is again not valid. > On Notability, which is the only thing to consider in the context of this talk page, DEIDetected undoubtedly fails to meet point 1 (there are no wiki links) Please re-read WD:N carefully. It's even noted in bold. An item is acceptable if and only if it fulfills at least one of these two goals; that is, if it meets at least one of the three criteria below . One of the three does not mean that criterion 1 is needed here, it means that (at least) either 1, 2 or 3 are needed, not all three. > On Notability, which is the only thing to consider in the context of this talk page, DEIDetected undoubtedly fails to meet point 1 (there are no wiki links) Please re-read WD:N carefully. It's even noted in bold. An item is acceptable if and only if it fulfills at least one of these two goals; that is, if it meets at least one of the three criteria below . One of the three does not mean that criterion 1 is needed here, it means that (at least) either 1, 2 or 3 are needed, not all three. In case you didn't know, an item can exist safely without criterion #1. Here's a good example. This item has a link to ruwiki, where the article is now set for deletion for obvious reasons, even if it will be eventually deleted, it does not mean that the item will be deleted over here, because it meets criterion #3, so your complaint is again not valid. > On Notability, which is the only thing to consider in the context of this talk page, DEIDetected undoubtedly fails to meet point 1 (there are no wiki links) Please re-read WD:N carefully. It's even noted in bold. An item is acceptable if and only if it fulfills at least one of these two goals; that is, if it meets at least one of the three criteria below . One of the three does not mean that criterion 1 is needed here, it means that (at least) either 1, 2 or 3 are needed, not all three. > On Notability, which is the only thing to consider in the context of this talk page, DEIDetected undoubtedly fails to meet point 1 (there are no wiki links) Please re-read WD:N carefully. It's even noted in bold. An item is acceptable if and only if it fulfills at least one of these two goals; that is, if it meets at least one of the three criteria below . One of the three does not mean that criterion 1 is needed here, it means that (at least) either 1, 2 or 3 are needed, not all three. > point 3 (no structural need, as its not used or linked to). Now meets criterion #3 and #1 as well. > point 3 (no structural need, as its not used or linked to). Now meets criterion #3 and #1 as well. > point 3 (no structural need, as its not used or linked to). Now meets criterion #3 and #1 as well. > point 3 (no structural need, as its not used or linked to). Now meets criterion #3 and #1 as well. > point 3 (no structural need, as its not used or linked to). > point 3 (no structural need, as its not used or linked to). Now meets criterion #3 and #1 as well. > point 3 (no structural need, as its not used or linked to). Now meets criterion #3 and #1 as well. > point 3 (no structural need, as its not used or linked to). Now meets criterion #3 and #1 as well. > point 3 (no structural need, as its not used or linked to). > point 3 (no structural need, as its not used or linked to). Now meets criterion #3 and #1 as well. > point 3 (no structural need, as its not used or linked to). Now meets criterion #3 and #1 as well. > point 3 (no structural need, as its not used or linked to). > point 3 (no structural need, as its not used or linked to). Now meets criterion #3 and #1 as well. > point 3 (no structural need, as its not used or linked to). > point 3 (no structural need, as its not used or linked to). > You could dismiss the points made by the Wikipedia editors just because they're on Wikipedia, but I didn't see a lot of value in repeating their valid assessment... You contradict yourself. You say that we can dismiss the points of Wikipedia editors, but at the same time you are again talking about their personal supposedly reasonable assessment of the sources cited here... And once again, let me also remind you that we do not evaluate sources here according to the authors of the article (as it is on Wikipedia) . Wikidata editors don't review the authors of articles, they simply take and use common sense to add independent available sources describing a subject, period. Everything else noted should be of little interest to the person who provides the source. > You could dismiss the points made by the Wikipedia editors just because they're on Wikipedia, but I didn't see a lot of value in repeating their valid assessment... You contradict yourself. You say that we can dismiss the points of Wikipedia editors, but at the same time you are again talking about their personal supposedly reasonable assessment of the sources cited here... And once again, let me also remind you that we do not evaluate sources here according to the authors of the article (as it is on Wikipedia) . Wikidata editors don't review the authors of articles, they simply take and use common sense to add independent available sources describing a subject, period. Everything else noted should be of little interest to the person who provides the source. > You could dismiss the points made by the Wikipedia editors just because they're on Wikipedia, but I didn't see a lot of value in repeating their valid assessment... You contradict yourself. You say that we can dismiss the points of Wikipedia editors, but at the same time you are again talking about their personal supposedly reasonable assessment of the sources cited here... And once again, let me also remind you that we do not evaluate sources here according to the authors of the article (as it is on Wikipedia) . Wikidata editors don't review the authors of articles, they simply take and use common sense to add independent available sources describing a subject, period. Everything else noted should be of little interest to the person who provides the source. > You could dismiss the points made by the Wikipedia editors just because they're on Wikipedia, but I didn't see a lot of value in repeating their valid assessment... You contradict yourself. You say that we can dismiss the points of Wikipedia editors, but at the same time you are again talking about their personal supposedly reasonable assessment of the sources cited here... And once again, let me also remind you that we do not evaluate sources here according to the authors of the article (as it is on Wikipedia) . Wikidata editors don't review the authors of articles, they simply take and use common sense to add independent available sources describing a subject, period. Everything else noted should be of little interest to the person who provides the source. > You could dismiss the points made by the Wikipedia editors just because they're on Wikipedia, but I didn't see a lot of value in repeating their valid assessment... > You could dismiss the points made by the Wikipedia editors just because they're on Wikipedia, but I didn't see a lot of value in repeating their valid assessment... You contradict yourself. You say that we can dismiss the points of Wikipedia editors, but at the same time you are again talking about their personal supposedly reasonable assessment of the sources cited here... And once again, let me also remind you that we do not evaluate sources here according to the authors of the article (as it is on Wikipedia) . Wikidata editors don't review the authors of articles, they simply take and use common sense to add independent available sources describing a subject, period. Everything else noted should be of little interest to the person who provides the source. > You could dismiss the points made by the Wikipedia editors just because they're on Wikipedia, but I didn't see a lot of value in repeating their valid assessment... You contradict yourself. You say that we can dismiss the points of Wikipedia editors, but at the same time you are again talking about their personal supposedly reasonable assessment of the sources cited here... And once again, let me also remind you that we do not evaluate sources here according to the authors of the article (as it is on Wikipedia) . Wikidata editors don't review the authors of articles, they simply take and use common sense to add independent available sources describing a subject, period. Everything else noted should be of little interest to the person who provides the source. > You could dismiss the points made by the Wikipedia editors just because they're on Wikipedia, but I didn't see a lot of value in repeating their valid assessment... You contradict yourself. You say that we can dismiss the points of Wikipedia editors, but at the same time you are again talking about their personal supposedly reasonable assessment of the sources cited here... And once again, let me also remind you that we do not evaluate sources here according to the authors of the article (as it is on Wikipedia) . Wikidata editors don't review the authors of articles, they simply take and use common sense to add independent available sources describing a subject, period. Everything else noted should be of little interest to the person who provides the source. > You could dismiss the points made by the Wikipedia editors just because they're on Wikipedia, but I didn't see a lot of value in repeating their valid assessment... > You could dismiss the points made by the Wikipedia editors just because they're on Wikipedia, but I didn't see a lot of value in repeating their valid assessment... You contradict yourself. You say that we can dismiss the points of Wikipedia editors, but at the same time you are again talking about their personal supposedly reasonable assessment of the sources cited here... And once again, let me also remind you that we do not evaluate sources here according to the authors of the article (as it is on Wikipedia) . Wikidata editors don't review the authors of articles, they simply take and use common sense to add independent available sources describing a subject, period. Everything else noted should be of little interest to the person who provides the source. > You could dismiss the points made by the Wikipedia editors just because they're on Wikipedia, but I didn't see a lot of value in repeating their valid assessment... You contradict yourself. You say that we can dismiss the points of Wikipedia editors, but at the same time you are again talking about their personal supposedly reasonable assessment of the sources cited here... And once again, let me also remind you that we do not evaluate sources here according to the authors of the article (as it is on Wikipedia) . Wikidata editors don't review the authors of articles, they simply take and use common sense to add independent available sources describing a subject, period. Everything else noted should be of little interest to the person who provides the source. > You could dismiss the points made by the Wikipedia editors just because they're on Wikipedia, but I didn't see a lot of value in repeating their valid assessment... > You could dismiss the points made by the Wikipedia editors just because they're on Wikipedia, but I didn't see a lot of value in repeating their valid assessment... You contradict yourself. You say that we can dismiss the points of Wikipedia editors, but at the same time you are again talking about their personal supposedly reasonable assessment of the sources cited here... And once again, let me also remind you that we do not evaluate sources here according to the authors of the article (as it is on Wikipedia) . Wikidata editors don't review the authors of articles, they simply take and use common sense to add independent available sources describing a subject, period. Everything else noted should be of little interest to the person who provides the source. > You could dismiss the points made by the Wikipedia editors just because they're on Wikipedia, but I didn't see a lot of value in repeating their valid assessment... > You could dismiss the points made by the Wikipedia editors just because they're on Wikipedia, but I didn't see a lot of value in repeating their valid assessment... And by the way, since you are so fixated on the article authors and you are considering the sources from Wikipedia's perspective, well, let me point something out. The author of this article turned out to be a serious person who has already been involved in the gaming industry. He's both a former editor of TechRadar (since you like to cite enwiki policies so often, it's if anything, a reliable source there...) and previously worked at Nintendo of Europe during the launch of the Nintendo Switch. What other complaints are you going to have? You're still going to say it's not reliable despite that, right? Even if it is true, I wouldn't be surprised, but in any case I'll remind you again that Wikidata doesn't evaluate references by article authors, so it doesn't make much of a difference. And by the way, since you are so fixated on the article authors and you are considering the sources from Wikipedia's perspective, well, let me point something out. The author of this article turned out to be a serious person who has already been involved in the gaming industry. He's both a former editor of TechRadar (since you like to cite enwiki policies so often, it's if anything, a reliable source there...) and previously worked at Nintendo of Europe during the launch of the Nintendo Switch. What other complaints are you going to have? You're still going to say it's not reliable despite that, right? Even if it is true, I wouldn't be surprised, but in any case I'll remind you again that Wikidata doesn't evaluate references by article authors, so it doesn't make much of a difference. And by the way, since you are so fixated on the article authors and you are considering the sources from Wikipedia's perspective, well, let me point something out. The author of this article turned out to be a serious person who has already been involved in the gaming industry. He's both a former editor of TechRadar (since you like to cite enwiki policies so often, it's if anything, a reliable source there...) and previously worked at Nintendo of Europe during the launch of the Nintendo Switch. What other complaints are you going to have? You're still going to say it's not reliable despite that, right? Even if it is true, I wouldn't be surprised, but in any case I'll remind you again that Wikidata doesn't evaluate references by article authors, so it doesn't make much of a difference. And by the way, since you are so fixated on the article authors and you are considering the sources from Wikipedia's perspective, well, let me point something out. The author of this article turned out to be a serious person who has already been involved in the gaming industry. He's both a former editor of TechRadar (since you like to cite enwiki policies so often, it's if anything, a reliable source there...) and previously worked at Nintendo of Europe during the launch of the Nintendo Switch. What other complaints are you going to have? You're still going to say it's not reliable despite that, right? Even if it is true, I wouldn't be surprised, but in any case I'll remind you again that Wikidata doesn't evaluate references by article authors, so it doesn't make much of a difference. And by the way, since you are so fixated on the article authors and you are considering the sources from Wikipedia's perspective, well, let me point something out. The author of this article turned out to be a serious person who has already been involved in the gaming industry. He's both a former editor of TechRadar (since you like to cite enwiki policies so often, it's if anything, a reliable source there...) and previously worked at Nintendo of Europe during the launch of the Nintendo Switch. What other complaints are you going to have? You're still going to say it's not reliable despite that, right? Even if it is true, I wouldn't be surprised, but in any case I'll remind you again that Wikidata doesn't evaluate references by article authors, so it doesn't make much of a difference. And by the way, since you are so fixated on the article authors and you are considering the sources from Wikipedia's perspective, well, let me point something out. The author of this article turned out to be a serious person who has already been involved in the gaming industry. He's both a former editor of TechRadar (since you like to cite enwiki policies so often, it's if anything, a reliable source there...) and previously worked at Nintendo of Europe during the launch of the Nintendo Switch. What other complaints are you going to have? You're still going to say it's not reliable despite that, right? Even if it is true, I wouldn't be surprised, but in any case I'll remind you again that Wikidata doesn't evaluate references by article authors, so it doesn't make much of a difference. And by the way, since you are so fixated on the article authors and you are considering the sources from Wikipedia's perspective, well, let me point something out. The author of this article turned out to be a serious person who has already been involved in the gaming industry. He's both a former editor of TechRadar (since you like to cite enwiki policies so often, it's if anything, a reliable source there...) and previously worked at Nintendo of Europe during the launch of the Nintendo Switch. What other complaints are you going to have? You're still going to say it's not reliable despite that, right? Even if it is true, I wouldn't be surprised, but in any case I'll remind you again that Wikidata doesn't evaluate references by article authors, so it doesn't make much of a difference. And by the way, since you are so fixated on the article authors and you are considering the sources from Wikipedia's perspective, well, let me point something out. The author of this article turned out to be a serious person who has already been involved in the gaming industry. He's both a former editor of TechRadar (since you like to cite enwiki policies so often, it's if anything, a reliable source there...) and previously worked at Nintendo of Europe during the launch of the Nintendo Switch. What other complaints are you going to have? You're still going to say it's not reliable despite that, right? Even if it is true, I wouldn't be surprised, but in any case I'll remind you again that Wikidata doesn't evaluate references by article authors, so it doesn't make much of a difference. And by the way, since you are so fixated on the article authors and you are considering the sources from Wikipedia's perspective, well, let me point something out. The author of this article turned out to be a serious person who has already been involved in the gaming industry. He's both a former editor of TechRadar (since you like to cite enwiki policies so often, it's if anything, a reliable source there...) and previously worked at Nintendo of Europe during the launch of the Nintendo Switch. What other complaints are you going to have? You're still going to say it's not reliable despite that, right? Even if it is true, I wouldn't be surprised, but in any case I'll remind you again that Wikidata doesn't evaluate references by article authors, so it doesn't make much of a difference. And by the way, since you are so fixated on the article authors and you are considering the sources from Wikipedia's perspective, well, let me point something out. The author of this article turned out to be a serious person who has already been involved in the gaming industry. He's both a former editor of TechRadar (since you like to cite enwiki policies so often, it's if anything, a reliable source there...) and previously worked at Nintendo of Europe during the launch of the Nintendo Switch. What other complaints are you going to have? You're still going to say it's not reliable despite that, right? Even if it is true, I wouldn't be surprised, but in any case I'll remind you again that Wikidata doesn't evaluate references by article authors, so it doesn't make much of a difference. > On IXBT, you're not really addressing the issue of AI news being unreliable by referring to the fact that Wikidata uses the site for purposes other than it being a reliable / serious source. You can have all the complaints you want about the article authors (who are not Wikidata's reference point when considering sources), but the fact that it's a more than reliable source doesn't change that. > On IXBT, you're not really addressing the issue of AI news being unreliable by referring to the fact that Wikidata uses the site for purposes other than it being a reliable / serious source. You can have all the complaints you want about the article authors (who are not Wikidata's reference point when considering sources), but the fact that it's a more than reliable source doesn't change that. > On IXBT, you're not really addressing the issue of AI news being unreliable by referring to the fact that Wikidata uses the site for purposes other than it being a reliable / serious source. You can have all the complaints you want about the article authors (who are not Wikidata's reference point when considering sources), but the fact that it's a more than reliable source doesn't change that. > On IXBT, you're not really addressing the issue of AI news being unreliable by referring to the fact that Wikidata uses the site for purposes other than it being a reliable / serious source. You can have all the complaints you want about the article authors (who are not Wikidata's reference point when considering sources), but the fact that it's a more than reliable source doesn't change that. > On IXBT, you're not really addressing the issue of AI news being unreliable by referring to the fact that Wikidata uses the site for purposes other than it being a reliable / serious source. > On IXBT, you're not really addressing the issue of AI news being unreliable by referring to the fact that Wikidata uses the site for purposes other than it being a reliable / serious source. You can have all the complaints you want about the article authors (who are not Wikidata's reference point when considering sources), but the fact that it's a more than reliable source doesn't change that. > On IXBT, you're not really addressing the issue of AI news being unreliable by referring to the fact that Wikidata uses the site for purposes other than it being a reliable / serious source. You can have all the complaints you want about the article authors (who are not Wikidata's reference point when considering sources), but the fact that it's a more than reliable source doesn't change that. > On IXBT, you're not really addressing the issue of AI news being unreliable by referring to the fact that Wikidata uses the site for purposes other than it being a reliable / serious source. You can have all the complaints you want about the article authors (who are not Wikidata's reference point when considering sources), but the fact that it's a more than reliable source doesn't change that. > On IXBT, you're not really addressing the issue of AI news being unreliable by referring to the fact that Wikidata uses the site for purposes other than it being a reliable / serious source. > On IXBT, you're not really addressing the issue of AI news being unreliable by referring to the fact that Wikidata uses the site for purposes other than it being a reliable / serious source. You can have all the complaints you want about the article authors (who are not Wikidata's reference point when considering sources), but the fact that it's a more than reliable source doesn't change that. > On IXBT, you're not really addressing the issue of AI news being unreliable by referring to the fact that Wikidata uses the site for purposes other than it being a reliable / serious source. You can have all the complaints you want about the article authors (who are not Wikidata's reference point when considering sources), but the fact that it's a more than reliable source doesn't change that. > On IXBT, you're not really addressing the issue of AI news being unreliable by referring to the fact that Wikidata uses the site for purposes other than it being a reliable / serious source. > On IXBT, you're not really addressing the issue of AI news being unreliable by referring to the fact that Wikidata uses the site for purposes other than it being a reliable / serious source. You can have all the complaints you want about the article authors (who are not Wikidata's reference point when considering sources), but the fact that it's a more than reliable source doesn't change that. > On IXBT, you're not really addressing the issue of AI news being unreliable by referring to the fact that Wikidata uses the site for purposes other than it being a reliable / serious source. > On IXBT, you're not really addressing the issue of AI news being unreliable by referring to the fact that Wikidata uses the site for purposes other than it being a reliable / serious source. > It's the same kind of logical fallacy as saying that because Wikidata has properties that link to other wikis, the information from those wikis is a reliable / serious source. That being unacceptable is specifically addressed by Help:Sources#Different_types_of_sources. I don't understand what you mean by "properties"? Properties if anything can't have links to other wikis, it's just not possible and no, iXBT is not a wiki site, it's a reliable source. The help page you cited says something completely different. It says that it is considered unacceptable to add references that are solely derived from various Wikimedia projects, including Wikipedia, which is exactly the one you often mention. Here's a specific example. In short: Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikidata, and all such references should be preferably replaced by other sources not related to Wikimedia projects. > It's the same kind of logical fallacy as saying that because Wikidata has properties that link to other wikis, the information from those wikis is a reliable / serious source. That being unacceptable is specifically addressed by Help:Sources#Different_types_of_sources. I don't understand what you mean by "properties"? Properties if anything can't have links to other wikis, it's just not possible and no, iXBT is not a wiki site, it's a reliable source. The help page you cited says something completely different. It says that it is considered unacceptable to add references that are solely derived from various Wikimedia projects, including Wikipedia, which is exactly the one you often mention. Here's a specific example. In short: Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikidata, and all such references should be preferably replaced by other sources not related to Wikimedia projects. > It's the same kind of logical fallacy as saying that because Wikidata has properties that link to other wikis, the information from those wikis is a reliable / serious source. That being unacceptable is specifically addressed by Help:Sources#Different_types_of_sources. I don't understand what you mean by "properties"? Properties if anything can't have links to other wikis, it's just not possible and no, iXBT is not a wiki site, it's a reliable source. The help page you cited says something completely different. It says that it is considered unacceptable to add references that are solely derived from various Wikimedia projects, including Wikipedia, which is exactly the one you often mention. Here's a specific example. In short: Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikidata, and all such references should be preferably replaced by other sources not related to Wikimedia projects. > It's the same kind of logical fallacy as saying that because Wikidata has properties that link to other wikis, the information from those wikis is a reliable / serious source. That being unacceptable is specifically addressed by Help:Sources#Different_types_of_sources. I don't understand what you mean by "properties"? Properties if anything can't have links to other wikis, it's just not possible and no, iXBT is not a wiki site, it's a reliable source. The help page you cited says something completely different. It says that it is considered unacceptable to add references that are solely derived from various Wikimedia projects, including Wikipedia, which is exactly the one you often mention. Here's a specific example. In short: Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikidata, and all such references should be preferably replaced by other sources not related to Wikimedia projects. > It's the same kind of logical fallacy as saying that because Wikidata has properties that link to other wikis, the information from those wikis is a reliable / serious source. That being unacceptable is specifically addressed by Help:Sources#Different_types_of_sources. > It's the same kind of logical fallacy as saying that because Wikidata has properties that link to other wikis, the information from those wikis is a reliable / serious source. That being unacceptable is specifically addressed by Help:Sources#Different_types_of_sources. I don't understand what you mean by "properties"? Properties if anything can't have links to other wikis, it's just not possible and no, iXBT is not a wiki site, it's a reliable source. The help page you cited says something completely different. It says that it is considered unacceptable to add references that are solely derived from various Wikimedia projects, including Wikipedia, which is exactly the one you often mention. Here's a specific example. In short: Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikidata, and all such references should be preferably replaced by other sources not related to Wikimedia projects. > It's the same kind of logical fallacy as saying that because Wikidata has properties that link to other wikis, the information from those wikis is a reliable / serious source. That being unacceptable is specifically addressed by Help:Sources#Different_types_of_sources. I don't understand what you mean by "properties"? Properties if anything can't have links to other wikis, it's just not possible and no, iXBT is not a wiki site, it's a reliable source. The help page you cited says something completely different. It says that it is considered unacceptable to add references that are solely derived from various Wikimedia projects, including Wikipedia, which is exactly the one you often mention. Here's a specific example. In short: Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikidata, and all such references should be preferably replaced by other sources not related to Wikimedia projects. > It's the same kind of logical fallacy as saying that because Wikidata has properties that link to other wikis, the information from those wikis is a reliable / serious source. That being unacceptable is specifically addressed by Help:Sources#Different_types_of_sources. I don't understand what you mean by "properties"? Properties if anything can't have links to other wikis, it's just not possible and no, iXBT is not a wiki site, it's a reliable source. The help page you cited says something completely different. It says that it is considered unacceptable to add references that are solely derived from various Wikimedia projects, including Wikipedia, which is exactly the one you often mention. Here's a specific example. In short: Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikidata, and all such references should be preferably replaced by other sources not related to Wikimedia projects. > It's the same kind of logical fallacy as saying that because Wikidata has properties that link to other wikis, the information from those wikis is a reliable / serious source. That being unacceptable is specifically addressed by Help:Sources#Different_types_of_sources. > It's the same kind of logical fallacy as saying that because Wikidata has properties that link to other wikis, the information from those wikis is a reliable / serious source. That being unacceptable is specifically addressed by Help:Sources#Different_types_of_sources. I don't understand what you mean by "properties"? Properties if anything can't have links to other wikis, it's just not possible and no, iXBT is not a wiki site, it's a reliable source. The help page you cited says something completely different. It says that it is considered unacceptable to add references that are solely derived from various Wikimedia projects, including Wikipedia, which is exactly the one you often mention. Here's a specific example. In short: Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikidata, and all such references should be preferably replaced by other sources not related to Wikimedia projects. > It's the same kind of logical fallacy as saying that because Wikidata has properties that link to other wikis, the information from those wikis is a reliable / serious source. That being unacceptable is specifically addressed by Help:Sources#Different_types_of_sources. I don't understand what you mean by "properties"? Properties if anything can't have links to other wikis, it's just not possible and no, iXBT is not a wiki site, it's a reliable source. The help page you cited says something completely different. It says that it is considered unacceptable to add references that are solely derived from various Wikimedia projects, including Wikipedia, which is exactly the one you often mention. Here's a specific example. In short: Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikidata, and all such references should be preferably replaced by other sources not related to Wikimedia projects. > It's the same kind of logical fallacy as saying that because Wikidata has properties that link to other wikis, the information from those wikis is a reliable / serious source. That being unacceptable is specifically addressed by Help:Sources#Different_types_of_sources. > It's the same kind of logical fallacy as saying that because Wikidata has properties that link to other wikis, the information from those wikis is a reliable / serious source. That being unacceptable is specifically addressed by Help:Sources#Different_types_of_sources. I don't understand what you mean by "properties"? Properties if anything can't have links to other wikis, it's just not possible and no, iXBT is not a wiki site, it's a reliable source. The help page you cited says something completely different. It says that it is considered unacceptable to add references that are solely derived from various Wikimedia projects, including Wikipedia, which is exactly the one you often mention. Here's a specific example. In short: Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikidata, and all such references should be preferably replaced by other sources not related to Wikimedia projects. > It's the same kind of logical fallacy as saying that because Wikidata has properties that link to other wikis, the information from those wikis is a reliable / serious source. That being unacceptable is specifically addressed by Help:Sources#Different_types_of_sources. > It's the same kind of logical fallacy as saying that because Wikidata has properties that link to other wikis, the information from those wikis is a reliable / serious source. That being unacceptable is specifically addressed by Help:Sources#Different_types_of_sources. > On the rest, I'd suggest moving your comment on the described at URL reverting to the Project chat page and your comment on USGamer to the Dustborn talk page (which contains my explanation), as those have no relation to whether a page is notable. I will respond via those if you do. No, your unreasonable reverts here are directly related, as you are attempting to remove a quite useful database that you do not agree with for your own personal reasons and I demand a clarification. I spent my own precious time searching for and adding references and you then reverted/deleted them all at once just because you don't agree with them. Wikidata doesn't work like that, we consider any source that may be useful, including for structural purposes, and you have completely ignored this fact . I will ask you a second time, again politely, to revert your edits, as disagreement is not a valid reason to remove sources from Wikidata . I also disagree with a lot of things, but I would never allow myself like you to delete/revert references perfectly well knowing that Wikidata often lacks them. > On the rest, I'd suggest moving your comment on the described at URL reverting to the Project chat page and your comment on USGamer to the Dustborn talk page (which contains my explanation), as those have no relation to whether a page is notable. I will respond via those if you do. No, your unreasonable reverts here are directly related, as you are attempting to remove a quite useful database that you do not agree with for your own personal reasons and I demand a clarification. I spent my own precious time searching for and adding references and you then reverted/deleted them all at once just because you don't agree with them. Wikidata doesn't work like that, we consider any source that may be useful, including for structural purposes, and you have completely ignored this fact . I will ask you a second time, again politely, to revert your edits, as disagreement is not a valid reason to remove sources from Wikidata . I also disagree with a lot of things, but I would never allow myself like you to delete/revert references perfectly well knowing that Wikidata often lacks them. > On the rest, I'd suggest moving your comment on the described at URL reverting to the Project chat page and your comment on USGamer to the Dustborn talk page (which contains my explanation), as those have no relation to whether a page is notable. I will respond via those if you do. No, your unreasonable reverts here are directly related, as you are attempting to remove a quite useful database that you do not agree with for your own personal reasons and I demand a clarification. I spent my own precious time searching for and adding references and you then reverted/deleted them all at once just because you don't agree with them. Wikidata doesn't work like that, we consider any source that may be useful, including for structural purposes, and you have completely ignored this fact . I will ask you a second time, again politely, to revert your edits, as disagreement is not a valid reason to remove sources from Wikidata . I also disagree with a lot of things, but I would never allow myself like you to delete/revert references perfectly well knowing that Wikidata often lacks them. > On the rest, I'd suggest moving your comment on the described at URL reverting to the Project chat page and your comment on USGamer to the Dustborn talk page (which contains my explanation), as those have no relation to whether a page is notable. I will respond via those if you do. No, your unreasonable reverts here are directly related, as you are attempting to remove a quite useful database that you do not agree with for your own personal reasons and I demand a clarification. I spent my own precious time searching for and adding references and you then reverted/deleted them all at once just because you don't agree with them. Wikidata doesn't work like that, we consider any source that may be useful, including for structural purposes, and you have completely ignored this fact . I will ask you a second time, again politely, to revert your edits, as disagreement is not a valid reason to remove sources from Wikidata . I also disagree with a lot of things, but I would never allow myself like you to delete/revert references perfectly well knowing that Wikidata often lacks them. > On the rest, I'd suggest moving your comment on the described at URL reverting to the Project chat page and your comment on USGamer to the Dustborn talk page (which contains my explanation), as those have no relation to whether a page is notable. I will respond via those if you do. > On the rest, I'd suggest moving your comment on the described at URL reverting to the Project chat page and your comment on USGamer to the Dustborn talk page (which contains my explanation), as those have no relation to whether a page is notable. I will respond via those if you do. No, your unreasonable reverts here are directly related, as you are attempting to remove a quite useful database that you do not agree with for your own personal reasons and I demand a clarification. I spent my own precious time searching for and adding references and you then reverted/deleted them all at once just because you don't agree with them. Wikidata doesn't work like that, we consider any source that may be useful, including for structural purposes, and you have completely ignored this fact . I will ask you a second time, again politely, to revert your edits, as disagreement is not a valid reason to remove sources from Wikidata . I also disagree with a lot of things, but I would never allow myself like you to delete/revert references perfectly well knowing that Wikidata often lacks them. > On the rest, I'd suggest moving your comment on the described at URL reverting to the Project chat page and your comment on USGamer to the Dustborn talk page (which contains my explanation), as those have no relation to whether a page is notable. I will respond via those if you do. No, your unreasonable reverts here are directly related, as you are attempting to remove a quite useful database that you do not agree with for your own personal reasons and I demand a clarification. I spent my own precious time searching for and adding references and you then reverted/deleted them all at once just because you don't agree with them. Wikidata doesn't work like that, we consider any source that may be useful, including for structural purposes, and you have completely ignored this fact . I will ask you a second time, again politely, to revert your edits, as disagreement is not a valid reason to remove sources from Wikidata . I also disagree with a lot of things, but I would never allow myself like you to delete/revert references perfectly well knowing that Wikidata often lacks them. > On the rest, I'd suggest moving your comment on the described at URL reverting to the Project chat page and your comment on USGamer to the Dustborn talk page (which contains my explanation), as those have no relation to whether a page is notable. I will respond via those if you do. No, your unreasonable reverts here are directly related, as you are attempting to remove a quite useful database that you do not agree with for your own personal reasons and I demand a clarification. I spent my own precious time searching for and adding references and you then reverted/deleted them all at once just because you don't agree with them. Wikidata doesn't work like that, we consider any source that may be useful, including for structural purposes, and you have completely ignored this fact . I will ask you a second time, again politely, to revert your edits, as disagreement is not a valid reason to remove sources from Wikidata . I also disagree with a lot of things, but I would never allow myself like you to delete/revert references perfectly well knowing that Wikidata often lacks them. > On the rest, I'd suggest moving your comment on the described at URL reverting to the Project chat page and your comment on USGamer to the Dustborn talk page (which contains my explanation), as those have no relation to whether a page is notable. I will respond via those if you do. > On the rest, I'd suggest moving your comment on the described at URL reverting to the Project chat page and your comment on USGamer to the Dustborn talk page (which contains my explanation), as those have no relation to whether a page is notable. I will respond via those if you do. No, your unreasonable reverts here are directly related, as you are attempting to remove a quite useful database that you do not agree with for your own personal reasons and I demand a clarification. I spent my own precious time searching for and adding references and you then reverted/deleted them all at once just because you don't agree with them. Wikidata doesn't work like that, we consider any source that may be useful, including for structural purposes, and you have completely ignored this fact . I will ask you a second time, again politely, to revert your edits, as disagreement is not a valid reason to remove sources from Wikidata . I also disagree with a lot of things, but I would never allow myself like you to delete/revert references perfectly well knowing that Wikidata often lacks them. > On the rest, I'd suggest moving your comment on the described at URL reverting to the Project chat page and your comment on USGamer to the Dustborn talk page (which contains my explanation), as those have no relation to whether a page is notable. I will respond via those if you do. No, your unreasonable reverts here are directly related, as you are attempting to remove a quite useful database that you do not agree with for your own personal reasons and I demand a clarification. I spent my own precious time searching for and adding references and you then reverted/deleted them all at once just because you don't agree with them. Wikidata doesn't work like that, we consider any source that may be useful, including for structural purposes, and you have completely ignored this fact . I will ask you a second time, again politely, to revert your edits, as disagreement is not a valid reason to remove sources from Wikidata . I also disagree with a lot of things, but I would never allow myself like you to delete/revert references perfectly well knowing that Wikidata often lacks them. > On the rest, I'd suggest moving your comment on the described at URL reverting to the Project chat page and your comment on USGamer to the Dustborn talk page (which contains my explanation), as those have no relation to whether a page is notable. I will respond via those if you do. > On the rest, I'd suggest moving your comment on the described at URL reverting to the Project chat page and your comment on USGamer to the Dustborn talk page (which contains my explanation), as those have no relation to whether a page is notable. I will respond via those if you do. No, your unreasonable reverts here are directly related, as you are attempting to remove a quite useful database that you do not agree with for your own personal reasons and I demand a clarification. I spent my own precious time searching for and adding references and you then reverted/deleted them all at once just because you don't agree with them. Wikidata doesn't work like that, we consider any source that may be useful, including for structural purposes, and you have completely ignored this fact . I will ask you a second time, again politely, to revert your edits, as disagreement is not a valid reason to remove sources from Wikidata . I also disagree with a lot of things, but I would never allow myself like you to delete/revert references perfectly well knowing that Wikidata often lacks them. > On the rest, I'd suggest moving your comment on the described at URL reverting to the Project chat page and your comment on USGamer to the Dustborn talk page (which contains my explanation), as those have no relation to whether a page is notable. I will respond via those if you do. > On the rest, I'd suggest moving your comment on the described at URL reverting to the Project chat page and your comment on USGamer to the Dustborn talk page (which contains my explanation), as those have no relation to whether a page is notable. I will respond via those if you do. The same goes for the USgamer issue. I don't know what your plans are here, who knows maybe you want to remove the USgamer item too, how should I be able to understand? That's why I'm asking why you removed this trusted source. > Also, bigbaddice.pl, the fourth source you added after my reply has every characteristic of a group blog, which would make it self-published and not reliable. That's your personal opinion. You are considering sources in terms of Wikipedia, not Wikidata, I don't know how else to explain that. And by the way the help page you cited both in this reply and the others above is just informational, not Wikidata policy . It also sometimes mentions the English Wikipedia as a reference, which, as correctly pointed out, should not be considered normative in Wikidata . The same goes for the USgamer issue. I don't know what your plans are here, who knows maybe you want to remove the USgamer item too, how should I be able to understand? That's why I'm asking why you removed this trusted source. > Also, bigbaddice.pl, the fourth source you added after my reply has every characteristic of a group blog, which would make it self-published and not reliable. That's your personal opinion. You are considering sources in terms of Wikipedia, not Wikidata, I don't know how else to explain that. And by the way the help page you cited both in this reply and the others above is just informational, not Wikidata policy . It also sometimes mentions the English Wikipedia as a reference, which, as correctly pointed out, should not be considered normative in Wikidata . The same goes for the USgamer issue. I don't know what your plans are here, who knows maybe you want to remove the USgamer item too, how should I be able to understand? That's why I'm asking why you removed this trusted source. > Also, bigbaddice.pl, the fourth source you added after my reply has every characteristic of a group blog, which would make it self-published and not reliable. That's your personal opinion. You are considering sources in terms of Wikipedia, not Wikidata, I don't know how else to explain that. And by the way the help page you cited both in this reply and the others above is just informational, not Wikidata policy . It also sometimes mentions the English Wikipedia as a reference, which, as correctly pointed out, should not be considered normative in Wikidata . The same goes for the USgamer issue. I don't know what your plans are here, who knows maybe you want to remove the USgamer item too, how should I be able to understand? That's why I'm asking why you removed this trusted source. > Also, bigbaddice.pl, the fourth source you added after my reply has every characteristic of a group blog, which would make it self-published and not reliable. That's your personal opinion. You are considering sources in terms of Wikipedia, not Wikidata, I don't know how else to explain that. And by the way the help page you cited both in this reply and the others above is just informational, not Wikidata policy . It also sometimes mentions the English Wikipedia as a reference, which, as correctly pointed out, should not be considered normative in Wikidata . The same goes for the USgamer issue. I don't know what your plans are here, who knows maybe you want to remove the USgamer item too, how should I be able to understand? That's why I'm asking why you removed this trusted source. > Also, bigbaddice.pl, the fourth source you added after my reply has every characteristic of a group blog, which would make it self-published and not reliable. The same goes for the USgamer issue. I don't know what your plans are here, who knows maybe you want to remove the USgamer item too, how should I be able to understand? That's why I'm asking why you removed this trusted source. > Also, bigbaddice.pl, the fourth source you added after my reply has every characteristic of a group blog, which would make it self-published and not reliable. That's your personal opinion. You are considering sources in terms of Wikipedia, not Wikidata, I don't know how else to explain that. And by the way the help page you cited both in this reply and the others above is just informational, not Wikidata policy . It also sometimes mentions the English Wikipedia as a reference, which, as correctly pointed out, should not be considered normative in Wikidata . The same goes for the USgamer issue. I don't know what your plans are here, who knows maybe you want to remove the USgamer item too, how should I be able to understand? That's why I'm asking why you removed this trusted source. > Also, bigbaddice.pl, the fourth source you added after my reply has every characteristic of a group blog, which would make it self-published and not reliable. That's your personal opinion. You are considering sources in terms of Wikipedia, not Wikidata, I don't know how else to explain that. And by the way the help page you cited both in this reply and the others above is just informational, not Wikidata policy . It also sometimes mentions the English Wikipedia as a reference, which, as correctly pointed out, should not be considered normative in Wikidata . The same goes for the USgamer issue. I don't know what your plans are here, who knows maybe you want to remove the USgamer item too, how should I be able to understand? That's why I'm asking why you removed this trusted source. > Also, bigbaddice.pl, the fourth source you added after my reply has every characteristic of a group blog, which would make it self-published and not reliable. That's your personal opinion. You are considering sources in terms of Wikipedia, not Wikidata, I don't know how else to explain that. And by the way the help page you cited both in this reply and the others above is just informational, not Wikidata policy . It also sometimes mentions the English Wikipedia as a reference, which, as correctly pointed out, should not be considered normative in Wikidata . The same goes for the USgamer issue. I don't know what your plans are here, who knows maybe you want to remove the USgamer item too, how should I be able to understand? That's why I'm asking why you removed this trusted source. > Also, bigbaddice.pl, the fourth source you added after my reply has every characteristic of a group blog, which would make it self-published and not reliable. The same goes for the USgamer issue. I don't know what your plans are here, who knows maybe you want to remove the USgamer item too, how should I be able to understand? That's why I'm asking why you removed this trusted source. > Also, bigbaddice.pl, the fourth source you added after my reply has every characteristic of a group blog, which would make it self-published and not reliable. That's your personal opinion. You are considering sources in terms of Wikipedia, not Wikidata, I don't know how else to explain that. And by the way the help page you cited both in this reply and the others above is just informational, not Wikidata policy . It also sometimes mentions the English Wikipedia as a reference, which, as correctly pointed out, should not be considered normative in Wikidata . The same goes for the USgamer issue. I don't know what your plans are here, who knows maybe you want to remove the USgamer item too, how should I be able to understand? That's why I'm asking why you removed this trusted source. > Also, bigbaddice.pl, the fourth source you added after my reply has every characteristic of a group blog, which would make it self-published and not reliable. That's your personal opinion. You are considering sources in terms of Wikipedia, not Wikidata, I don't know how else to explain that. And by the way the help page you cited both in this reply and the others above is just informational, not Wikidata policy . It also sometimes mentions the English Wikipedia as a reference, which, as correctly pointed out, should not be considered normative in Wikidata . The same goes for the USgamer issue. I don't know what your plans are here, who knows maybe you want to remove the USgamer item too, how should I be able to understand? That's why I'm asking why you removed this trusted source. > Also, bigbaddice.pl, the fourth source you added after my reply has every characteristic of a group blog, which would make it self-published and not reliable. The same goes for the USgamer issue. I don't know what your plans are here, who knows maybe you want to remove the USgamer item too, how should I be able to understand? That's why I'm asking why you removed this trusted source. > Also, bigbaddice.pl, the fourth source you added after my reply has every characteristic of a group blog, which would make it self-published and not reliable. That's your personal opinion. You are considering sources in terms of Wikipedia, not Wikidata, I don't know how else to explain that. And by the way the help page you cited both in this reply and the others above is just informational, not Wikidata policy . It also sometimes mentions the English Wikipedia as a reference, which, as correctly pointed out, should not be considered normative in Wikidata . The same goes for the USgamer issue. I don't know what your plans are here, who knows maybe you want to remove the USgamer item too, how should I be able to understand? That's why I'm asking why you removed this trusted source. > Also, bigbaddice.pl, the fourth source you added after my reply has every characteristic of a group blog, which would make it self-published and not reliable. The same goes for the USgamer issue. I don't know what your plans are here, who knows maybe you want to remove the USgamer item too, how should I be able to understand? That's why I'm asking why you removed this trusted source. > Also, bigbaddice.pl, the fourth source you added after my reply has every characteristic of a group blog, which would make it self-published and not reliable. P.S. I see that you have started to literally follow my crosswiki activity to bother me there too, please stop this kind of behavior. I warn you that I will not tolerate such blatant behavior. I think it is absolutely not normal that first my edits are reverted only because you do not agree with the source ( disagreement is not in any case is not a valid reason for removing sources ), then also follow me crosswiki and accuse me. I did nothing to you and I want to be left alone! You don't let me work on Wikidata in peace and accuse me of everything. I don't understand what you want from me and you're directly preventing my further activity. Regards Kirilloparma ( talk ) 03:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC) Wikidata:Verifiability is linked from Template:Policies and Guidelines , as well as Help:Sources#Different_types_of_sources suggesting its use for identifying reliable sources. Daisy Blue ( talk ) 08:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC) I don't know the exact reason why WD:V is in the mentioned pages, but it's just an informational page and certainly not a Wikidata policy , unlike WD:N . WD:V mentions English Wikipedia (unreliable source for Wikidata) as a reference point for sources, which, as correctly pointed out, should not be considered normative in Wikidata . All Wikidata policies and guidelines are marked with specific templates . P.S. I see that you have started to literally follow my crosswiki activity to bother me there too, please stop this kind of behavior. I warn you that I will not tolerate such blatant behavior. I think it is absolutely not normal that first my edits are reverted only because you do not agree with the source ( disagreement is not in any case is not a valid reason for removing sources ), then also follow me crosswiki and accuse me. I did nothing to you and I want to be left alone! You don't let me work on Wikidata in peace and accuse me of everything. I don't understand what you want from me and you're directly preventing my further activity. Regards Kirilloparma ( talk ) 03:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC) Wikidata:Verifiability is linked from Template:Policies and Guidelines , as well as Help:Sources#Different_types_of_sources suggesting its use for identifying reliable sources. Daisy Blue ( talk ) 08:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC) I don't know the exact reason why WD:V is in the mentioned pages, but it's just an informational page and certainly not a Wikidata policy , unlike WD:N . WD:V mentions English Wikipedia (unreliable source for Wikidata) as a reference point for sources, which, as correctly pointed out, should not be considered normative in Wikidata . All Wikidata policies and guidelines are marked with specific templates . P.S. I see that you have started to literally follow my crosswiki activity to bother me there too, please stop this kind of behavior. I warn you that I will not tolerate such blatant behavior. I think it is absolutely not normal that first my edits are reverted only because you do not agree with the source ( disagreement is not in any case is not a valid reason for removing sources ), then also follow me crosswiki and accuse me. I did nothing to you and I want to be left alone! You don't let me work on Wikidata in peace and accuse me of everything. I don't understand what you want from me and you're directly preventing my further activity. Regards Kirilloparma ( talk ) 03:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC) Wikidata:Verifiability is linked from Template:Policies and Guidelines , as well as Help:Sources#Different_types_of_sources suggesting its use for identifying reliable sources. Daisy Blue ( talk ) 08:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC) I don't know the exact reason why WD:V is in the mentioned pages, but it's just an informational page and certainly not a Wikidata policy , unlike WD:N . WD:V mentions English Wikipedia (unreliable source for Wikidata) as a reference point for sources, which, as correctly pointed out, should not be considered normative in Wikidata . All Wikidata policies and guidelines are marked with specific templates . P.S. I see that you have started to literally follow my crosswiki activity to bother me there too, please stop this kind of behavior. I warn you that I will not tolerate such blatant behavior. I think it is absolutely not normal that first my edits are reverted only because you do not agree with the source ( disagreement is not in any case is not a valid reason for removing sources ), then also follow me crosswiki and accuse me. I did nothing to you and I want to be left alone! You don't let me work on Wikidata in peace and accuse me of everything. I don't understand what you want from me and you're directly preventing my further activity. Regards Kirilloparma ( talk ) 03:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC) Wikidata:Verifiability is linked from Template:Policies and Guidelines , as well as Help:Sources#Different_types_of_sources suggesting its use for identifying reliable sources. Daisy Blue ( talk ) 08:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC) I don't know the exact reason why WD:V is in the mentioned pages, but it's just an informational page and certainly not a Wikidata policy , unlike WD:N . WD:V mentions English Wikipedia (unreliable source for Wikidata) as a reference point for sources, which, as correctly pointed out, should not be considered normative in Wikidata . All Wikidata policies and guidelines are marked with specific templates . P.S. I see that you have started to literally follow my crosswiki activity to bother me there too, please stop this kind of behavior. I warn you that I will not tolerate such blatant behavior. I think it is absolutely not normal that first my edits are reverted only because you do not agree with the source ( disagreement is not in any case is not a valid reason for removing sources ), then also follow me crosswiki and accuse me. I did nothing to you and I want to be left alone! You don't let me work on Wikidata in peace and accuse me of everything. I don't understand what you want from me and you're directly preventing my further activity. Regards Kirilloparma ( talk ) 03:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC) Wikidata:Verifiability is linked from Template:Policies and Guidelines , as well as Help:Sources#Different_types_of_sources suggesting its use for identifying reliable sources. Daisy Blue ( talk ) 08:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC) I don't know the exact reason why WD:V is in the mentioned pages, but it's just an informational page and certainly not a Wikidata policy , unlike WD:N . WD:V mentions English Wikipedia (unreliable source for Wikidata) as a reference point for sources, which, as correctly pointed out, should not be considered normative in Wikidata . All Wikidata policies and guidelines are marked with specific templates . Wikidata:Verifiability is linked from Template:Policies and Guidelines , as well as Help:Sources#Different_types_of_sources suggesting its use for identifying reliable sources. Daisy Blue ( talk ) 08:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC) I don't know the exact reason why WD:V is in the mentioned pages, but it's just an informational page and certainly not a Wikidata policy , unlike WD:N . WD:V mentions English Wikipedia (unreliable source for Wikidata) as a reference point for sources, which, as correctly pointed out, should not be considered normative in Wikidata . All Wikidata policies and guidelines are marked with specific templates . P.S. I see that you have started to literally follow my crosswiki activity to bother me there too, please stop this kind of behavior. I warn you that I will not tolerate such blatant behavior. I think it is absolutely not normal that first my edits are reverted only because you do not agree with the source ( disagreement is not in any case is not a valid reason for removing sources ), then also follow me crosswiki and accuse me. I did nothing to you and I want to be left alone! You don't let me work on Wikidata in peace and accuse me of everything. I don't understand what you want from me and you're directly preventing my further activity. Regards Kirilloparma ( talk ) 03:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC) Wikidata:Verifiability is linked from Template:Policies and Guidelines , as well as Help:Sources#Different_types_of_sources suggesting its use for identifying reliable sources. Daisy Blue ( talk ) 08:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC) I don't know the exact reason why WD:V is in the mentioned pages, but it's just an informational page and certainly not a Wikidata policy , unlike WD:N . WD:V mentions English Wikipedia (unreliable source for Wikidata) as a reference point for sources, which, as correctly pointed out, should not be considered normative in Wikidata . All Wikidata policies and guidelines are marked with specific templates . P.S. I see that you have started to literally follow my crosswiki activity to bother me there too, please stop this kind of behavior. I warn you that I will not tolerate such blatant behavior. I think it is absolutely not normal that first my edits are reverted only because you do not agree with the source ( disagreement is not in any case is not a valid reason for removing sources ), then also follow me crosswiki and accuse me. I did nothing to you and I want to be left alone! You don't let me work on Wikidata in peace and accuse me of everything. I don't understand what you want from me and you're directly preventing my further activity. Regards Kirilloparma ( talk ) 03:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC) Wikidata:Verifiability is linked from Template:Policies and Guidelines , as well as Help:Sources#Different_types_of_sources suggesting its use for identifying reliable sources. Daisy Blue ( talk ) 08:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC) I don't know the exact reason why WD:V is in the mentioned pages, but it's just an informational page and certainly not a Wikidata policy , unlike WD:N . WD:V mentions English Wikipedia (unreliable source for Wikidata) as a reference point for sources, which, as correctly pointed out, should not be considered normative in Wikidata . All Wikidata policies and guidelines are marked with specific templates . P.S. I see that you have started to literally follow my crosswiki activity to bother me there too, please stop this kind of behavior. I warn you that I will not tolerate such blatant behavior. I think it is absolutely not normal that first my edits are reverted only because you do not agree with the source ( disagreement is not in any case is not a valid reason for removing sources ), then also follow me crosswiki and accuse me. I did nothing to you and I want to be left alone! You don't let me work on Wikidata in peace and accuse me of everything. I don't understand what you want from me and you're directly preventing my further activity. Regards Kirilloparma ( talk ) 03:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC) Wikidata:Verifiability is linked from Template:Policies and Guidelines , as well as Help:Sources#Different_types_of_sources suggesting its use for identifying reliable sources. Daisy Blue ( talk ) 08:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC) I don't know the exact reason why WD:V is in the mentioned pages, but it's just an informational page and certainly not a Wikidata policy , unlike WD:N . WD:V mentions English Wikipedia (unreliable source for Wikidata) as a reference point for sources, which, as correctly pointed out, should not be considered normative in Wikidata . All Wikidata policies and guidelines are marked with specific templates . P.S. I see that you have started to literally follow my crosswiki activity to bother me there too, please stop this kind of behavior. I warn you that I will not tolerate such blatant behavior. I think it is absolutely not normal that first my edits are reverted only because you do not agree with the source ( disagreement is not in any case is not a valid reason for removing sources ), then also follow me crosswiki and accuse me. I did nothing to you and I want to be left alone! You don't let me work on Wikidata in peace and accuse me of everything. I don't understand what you want from me and you're directly preventing my further activity. Regards Kirilloparma ( talk ) 03:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC) Wikidata:Verifiability is linked from Template:Policies and Guidelines , as well as Help:Sources#Different_types_of_sources suggesting its use for identifying reliable sources. Daisy Blue ( talk ) 08:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC) I don't know the exact reason why WD:V is in the mentioned pages, but it's just an informational page and certainly not a Wikidata policy , unlike WD:N . WD:V mentions English Wikipedia (unreliable source for Wikidata) as a reference point for sources, which, as correctly pointed out, should not be considered normative in Wikidata . All Wikidata policies and guidelines are marked with specific templates . Wikidata:Verifiability is linked from Template:Policies and Guidelines , as well as Help:Sources#Different_types_of_sources suggesting its use for identifying reliable sources. Daisy Blue ( talk ) 08:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC) I don't know the exact reason why WD:V is in the mentioned pages, but it's just an informational page and certainly not a Wikidata policy , unlike WD:N . WD:V mentions English Wikipedia (unreliable source for Wikidata) as a reference point for sources, which, as correctly pointed out, should not be considered normative in Wikidata . All Wikidata policies and guidelines are marked with specific templates . P.S. I see that you have started to literally follow my crosswiki activity to bother me there too, please stop this kind of behavior. I warn you that I will not tolerate such blatant behavior. I think it is absolutely not normal that first my edits are reverted only because you do not agree with the source ( disagreement is not in any case is not a valid reason for removing sources ), then also follow me crosswiki and accuse me. I did nothing to you and I want to be left alone! You don't let me work on Wikidata in peace and accuse me of everything. I don't understand what you want from me and you're directly preventing my further activity. Regards Kirilloparma ( talk ) 03:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC) Wikidata:Verifiability is linked from Template:Policies and Guidelines , as well as Help:Sources#Different_types_of_sources suggesting its use for identifying reliable sources. Daisy Blue ( talk ) 08:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC) I don't know the exact reason why WD:V is in the mentioned pages, but it's just an informational page and certainly not a Wikidata policy , unlike WD:N . WD:V mentions English Wikipedia (unreliable source for Wikidata) as a reference point for sources, which, as correctly pointed out, should not be considered normative in Wikidata . All Wikidata policies and guidelines are marked with specific templates . P.S. I see that you have started to literally follow my crosswiki activity to bother me there too, please stop this kind of behavior. I warn you that I will not tolerate such blatant behavior. I think it is absolutely not normal that first my edits are reverted only because you do not agree with the source ( disagreement is not in any case is not a valid reason for removing sources ), then also follow me crosswiki and accuse me. I did nothing to you and I want to be left alone! You don't let me work on Wikidata in peace and accuse me of everything. I don't understand what you want from me and you're directly preventing my further activity. Regards Kirilloparma ( talk ) 03:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC) Wikidata:Verifiability is linked from Template:Policies and Guidelines , as well as Help:Sources#Different_types_of_sources suggesting its use for identifying reliable sources. Daisy Blue ( talk ) 08:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC) I don't know the exact reason why WD:V is in the mentioned pages, but it's just an informational page and certainly not a Wikidata policy , unlike WD:N . WD:V mentions English Wikipedia (unreliable source for Wikidata) as a reference point for sources, which, as correctly pointed out, should not be considered normative in Wikidata . All Wikidata policies and guidelines are marked with specific templates . P.S. I see that you have started to literally follow my crosswiki activity to bother me there too, please stop this kind of behavior. I warn you that I will not tolerate such blatant behavior. I think it is absolutely not normal that first my edits are reverted only because you do not agree with the source ( disagreement is not in any case is not a valid reason for removing sources ), then also follow me crosswiki and accuse me. I did nothing to you and I want to be left alone! You don't let me work on Wikidata in peace and accuse me of everything. I don't understand what you want from me and you're directly preventing my further activity. Regards Kirilloparma ( talk ) 03:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC) Wikidata:Verifiability is linked from Template:Policies and Guidelines , as well as Help:Sources#Different_types_of_sources suggesting its use for identifying reliable sources. Daisy Blue ( talk ) 08:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC) I don't know the exact reason why WD:V is in the mentioned pages, but it's just an informational page and certainly not a Wikidata policy , unlike WD:N . WD:V mentions English Wikipedia (unreliable source for Wikidata) as a reference point for sources, which, as correctly pointed out, should not be considered normative in Wikidata . All Wikidata policies and guidelines are marked with specific templates . Wikidata:Verifiability is linked from Template:Policies and Guidelines , as well as Help:Sources#Different_types_of_sources suggesting its use for identifying reliable sources. Daisy Blue ( talk ) 08:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC) I don't know the exact reason why WD:V is in the mentioned pages, but it's just an informational page and certainly not a Wikidata policy , unlike WD:N . WD:V mentions English Wikipedia (unreliable source for Wikidata) as a reference point for sources, which, as correctly pointed out, should not be considered normative in Wikidata . All Wikidata policies and guidelines are marked with specific templates . P.S. I see that you have started to literally follow my crosswiki activity to bother me there too, please stop this kind of behavior. I warn you that I will not tolerate such blatant behavior. I think it is absolutely not normal that first my edits are reverted only because you do not agree with the source ( disagreement is not in any case is not a valid reason for removing sources ), then also follow me crosswiki and accuse me. I did nothing to you and I want to be left alone! You don't let me work on Wikidata in peace and accuse me of everything. I don't understand what you want from me and you're directly preventing my further activity. Regards Kirilloparma ( talk ) 03:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC) Wikidata:Verifiability is linked from Template:Policies and Guidelines , as well as Help:Sources#Different_types_of_sources suggesting its use for identifying reliable sources. Daisy Blue ( talk ) 08:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC) I don't know the exact reason why WD:V is in the mentioned pages, but it's just an informational page and certainly not a Wikidata policy , unlike WD:N . WD:V mentions English Wikipedia (unreliable source for Wikidata) as a reference point for sources, which, as correctly pointed out, should not be considered normative in Wikidata . All Wikidata policies and guidelines are marked with specific templates . P.S. I see that you have started to literally follow my crosswiki activity to bother me there too, please stop this kind of behavior. I warn you that I will not tolerate such blatant behavior. I think it is absolutely not normal that first my edits are reverted only because you do not agree with the source ( disagreement is not in any case is not a valid reason for removing sources ), then also follow me crosswiki and accuse me. I did nothing to you and I want to be left alone! You don't let me work on Wikidata in peace and accuse me of everything. I don't understand what you want from me and you're directly preventing my further activity. Regards Kirilloparma ( talk ) 03:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC) Wikidata:Verifiability is linked from Template:Policies and Guidelines , as well as Help:Sources#Different_types_of_sources suggesting its use for identifying reliable sources. Daisy Blue ( talk ) 08:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC) I don't know the exact reason why WD:V is in the mentioned pages, but it's just an informational page and certainly not a Wikidata policy , unlike WD:N . WD:V mentions English Wikipedia (unreliable source for Wikidata) as a reference point for sources, which, as correctly pointed out, should not be considered normative in Wikidata . All Wikidata policies and guidelines are marked with specific templates . Wikidata:Verifiability is linked from Template:Policies and Guidelines , as well as Help:Sources#Different_types_of_sources suggesting its use for identifying reliable sources. Daisy Blue ( talk ) 08:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC) I don't know the exact reason why WD:V is in the mentioned pages, but it's just an informational page and certainly not a Wikidata policy , unlike WD:N . WD:V mentions English Wikipedia (unreliable source for Wikidata) as a reference point for sources, which, as correctly pointed out, should not be considered normative in Wikidata . All Wikidata policies and guidelines are marked with specific templates . P.S. I see that you have started to literally follow my crosswiki activity to bother me there too, please stop this kind of behavior. I warn you that I will not tolerate such blatant behavior. I think it is absolutely not normal that first my edits are reverted only because you do not agree with the source ( disagreement is not in any case is not a valid reason for removing sources ), then also follow me crosswiki and accuse me. I did nothing to you and I want to be left alone! You don't let me work on Wikidata in peace and accuse me of everything. I don't understand what you want from me and you're directly preventing my further activity. Regards Kirilloparma ( talk ) 03:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC) Wikidata:Verifiability is linked from Template:Policies and Guidelines , as well as Help:Sources#Different_types_of_sources suggesting its use for identifying reliable sources. Daisy Blue ( talk ) 08:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC) I don't know the exact reason why WD:V is in the mentioned pages, but it's just an informational page and certainly not a Wikidata policy , unlike WD:N . WD:V mentions English Wikipedia (unreliable source for Wikidata) as a reference point for sources, which, as correctly pointed out, should not be considered normative in Wikidata . All Wikidata policies and guidelines are marked with specific templates . Wikidata:Verifiability is linked from Template:Policies and Guidelines , as well as Help:Sources#Different_types_of_sources suggesting its use for identifying reliable sources. Daisy Blue ( talk ) 08:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC) I don't know the exact reason why WD:V is in the mentioned pages, but it's just an informational page and certainly not a Wikidata policy , unlike WD:N . WD:V mentions English Wikipedia (unreliable source for Wikidata) as a reference point for sources, which, as correctly pointed out, should not be considered normative in Wikidata . All Wikidata policies and guidelines are marked with specific templates . Wikidata:Verifiability is linked from Template:Policies and Guidelines , as well as Help:Sources#Different_types_of_sources suggesting its use for identifying reliable sources. Daisy Blue ( talk ) 08:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC) I don't know the exact reason why WD:V is in the mentioned pages, but it's just an informational page and certainly not a Wikidata policy , unlike WD:N . WD:V mentions English Wikipedia (unreliable source for Wikidata) as a reference point for sources, which, as correctly pointed out, should not be considered normative in Wikidata . All Wikidata policies and guidelines are marked with specific templates . By the way, I see that for all these days that I was away, you have not even bothered to answer my questions and comment on everything that I have noted... You just responded about one comment that essentially has nothing to do with deletion at all and that's it? I see that you either don't care or you have nothing more to add. In that case I will probably distance myself from this discussion as well, I have nothing more to do here. Everything you asked me I answered, I also commented and even more, I noted a considerable amount of things, but there were almost no answers to my questions... Here I see only going in circles and I am not obliged and I am not going to answer you anymore. I have done my part and will wait for the outcome of the deletion request. By the way, I see that for all these days that I was away, you have not even bothered to answer my questions and comment on everything that I have noted... You just responded about one comment that essentially has nothing to do with deletion at all and that's it? I see that you either don't care or you have nothing more to add. In that case I will probably distance myself from this discussion as well, I have nothing more to do here. Everything you asked me I answered, I also commented and even more, I noted a considerable amount of things, but there were almost no answers to my questions... Here I see only going in circles and I am not obliged and I am not going to answer you anymore. I have done my part and will wait for the outcome of the deletion request. By the way, I see that for all these days that I was away, you have not even bothered to answer my questions and comment on everything that I have noted... You just responded about one comment that essentially has nothing to do with deletion at all and that's it? I see that you either don't care or you have nothing more to add. In that case I will probably distance myself from this discussion as well, I have nothing more to do here. Everything you asked me I answered, I also commented and even more, I noted a considerable amount of things, but there were almost no answers to my questions... Here I see only going in circles and I am not obliged and I am not going to answer you anymore. I have done my part and will wait for the outcome of the deletion request. By the way, I see that for all these days that I was away, you have not even bothered to answer my questions and comment on everything that I have noted... You just responded about one comment that essentially has nothing to do with deletion at all and that's it? I see that you either don't care or you have nothing more to add. In that case I will probably distance myself from this discussion as well, I have nothing more to do here. Everything you asked me I answered, I also commented and even more, I noted a considerable amount of things, but there were almost no answers to my questions... Here I see only going in circles and I am not obliged and I am not going to answer you anymore. I have done my part and will wait for the outcome of the deletion request. By the way, I see that for all these days that I was away, you have not even bothered to answer my questions and comment on everything that I have noted... You just responded about one comment that essentially has nothing to do with deletion at all and that's it? I see that you either don't care or you have nothing more to add. In that case I will probably distance myself from this discussion as well, I have nothing more to do here. Everything you asked me I answered, I also commented and even more, I noted a considerable amount of things, but there were almost no answers to my questions... Here I see only going in circles and I am not obliged and I am not going to answer you anymore. I have done my part and will wait for the outcome of the deletion request. By the way, I see that for all these days that I was away, you have not even bothered to answer my questions and comment on everything that I have noted... You just responded about one comment that essentially has nothing to do with deletion at all and that's it? I see that you either don't care or you have nothing more to add. In that case I will probably distance myself from this discussion as well, I have nothing more to do here. Everything you asked me I answered, I also commented and even more, I noted a considerable amount of things, but there were almost no answers to my questions... Here I see only going in circles and I am not obliged and I am not going to answer you anymore. I have done my part and will wait for the outcome of the deletion request. By the way, I see that for all these days that I was away, you have not even bothered to answer my questions and comment on everything that I have noted... You just responded about one comment that essentially has nothing to do with deletion at all and that's it? I see that you either don't care or you have nothing more to add. In that case I will probably distance myself from this discussion as well, I have nothing more to do here. Everything you asked me I answered, I also commented and even more, I noted a considerable amount of things, but there were almost no answers to my questions... Here I see only going in circles and I am not obliged and I am not going to answer you anymore. I have done my part and will wait for the outcome of the deletion request. By the way, I see that for all these days that I was away, you have not even bothered to answer my questions and comment on everything that I have noted... You just responded about one comment that essentially has nothing to do with deletion at all and that's it? I see that you either don't care or you have nothing more to add. In that case I will probably distance myself from this discussion as well, I have nothing more to do here. Everything you asked me I answered, I also commented and even more, I noted a considerable amount of things, but there were almost no answers to my questions... Here I see only going in circles and I am not obliged and I am not going to answer you anymore. I have done my part and will wait for the outcome of the deletion request. By the way, I see that for all these days that I was away, you have not even bothered to answer my questions and comment on everything that I have noted... You just responded about one comment that essentially has nothing to do with deletion at all and that's it? I see that you either don't care or you have nothing more to add. In that case I will probably distance myself from this discussion as well, I have nothing more to do here. Everything you asked me I answered, I also commented and even more, I noted a considerable amount of things, but there were almost no answers to my questions... Here I see only going in circles and I am not obliged and I am not going to answer you anymore. I have done my part and will wait for the outcome of the deletion request. By the way, I see that for all these days that I was away, you have not even bothered to answer my questions and comment on everything that I have noted... You just responded about one comment that essentially has nothing to do with deletion at all and that's it? I see that you either don't care or you have nothing more to add. In that case I will probably distance myself from this discussion as well, I have nothing more to do here. Everything you asked me I answered, I also commented and even more, I noted a considerable amount of things, but there were almost no answers to my questions... Here I see only going in circles and I am not obliged and I am not going to answer you anymore. I have done my part and will wait for the outcome of the deletion request. By the way, I see that for all these days that I was away, you have not even bothered to answer my questions and comment on everything that I have noted... You just responded about one comment that essentially has nothing to do with deletion at all and that's it? I see that you either don't care or you have nothing more to add. In that case I will probably distance myself from this discussion as well, I have nothing more to do here. Everything you asked me I answered, I also commented and even more, I noted a considerable amount of things, but there were almost no answers to my questions... Here I see only going in circles and I am not obliged and I am not going to answer you anymore. I have done my part and will wait for the outcome of the deletion request. By the way, I see that for all these days that I was away, you have not even bothered to answer my questions and comment on everything that I have noted... You just responded about one comment that essentially has nothing to do with deletion at all and that's it? I see that you either don't care or you have nothing more to add. In that case I will probably distance myself from this discussion as well, I have nothing more to do here. Everything you asked me I answered, I also commented and even more, I noted a considerable amount of things, but there were almost no answers to my questions... Here I see only going in circles and I am not obliged and I am not going to answer you anymore. I have done my part and will wait for the outcome of the deletion request. By the way, I see that for all these days that I was away, you have not even bothered to answer my questions and comment on everything that I have noted... You just responded about one comment that essentially has nothing to do with deletion at all and that's it? I see that you either don't care or you have nothing more to add. In that case I will probably distance myself from this discussion as well, I have nothing more to do here. Everything you asked me I answered, I also commented and even more, I noted a considerable amount of things, but there were almost no answers to my questions... Here I see only going in circles and I am not obliged and I am not going to answer you anymore. I have done my part and will wait for the outcome of the deletion request. By the way, I see that for all these days that I was away, you have not even bothered to answer my questions and comment on everything that I have noted... You just responded about one comment that essentially has nothing to do with deletion at all and that's it? I see that you either don't care or you have nothing more to add. In that case I will probably distance myself from this discussion as well, I have nothing more to do here. Everything you asked me I answered, I also commented and even more, I noted a considerable amount of things, but there were almost no answers to my questions... Here I see only going in circles and I am not obliged and I am not going to answer you anymore. I have done my part and will wait for the outcome of the deletion request. By the way, I see that for all these days that I was away, you have not even bothered to answer my questions and comment on everything that I have noted... You just responded about one comment that essentially has nothing to do with deletion at all and that's it? I see that you either don't care or you have nothing more to add. In that case I will probably distance myself from this discussion as well, I have nothing more to do here. Everything you asked me I answered, I also commented and even more, I noted a considerable amount of things, but there were almost no answers to my questions... Here I see only going in circles and I am not obliged and I am not going to answer you anymore. I have done my part and will wait for the outcome of the deletion request. By the way, I see that for all these days that I was away, you have not even bothered to answer my questions and comment on everything that I have noted... You just responded about one comment that essentially has nothing to do with deletion at all and that's it? I see that you either don't care or you have nothing more to add. In that case I will probably distance myself from this discussion as well, I have nothing more to do here. Everything you asked me I answered, I also commented and even more, I noted a considerable amount of things, but there were almost no answers to my questions... Here I see only going in circles and I am not obliged and I am not going to answer you anymore. I have done my part and will wait for the outcome of the deletion request. By the way, I see that for all these days that I was away, you have not even bothered to answer my questions and comment on everything that I have noted... You just responded about one comment that essentially has nothing to do with deletion at all and that's it? I see that you either don't care or you have nothing more to add. In that case I will probably distance myself from this discussion as well, I have nothing more to do here. Everything you asked me I answered, I also commented and even more, I noted a considerable amount of things, but there were almost no answers to my questions... Here I see only going in circles and I am not obliged and I am not going to answer you anymore. I have done my part and will wait for the outcome of the deletion request. By the way, I see that for all these days that I was away, you have not even bothered to answer my questions and comment on everything that I have noted... You just responded about one comment that essentially has nothing to do with deletion at all and that's it? I see that you either don't care or you have nothing more to add. In that case I will probably distance myself from this discussion as well, I have nothing more to do here. Everything you asked me I answered, I also commented and even more, I noted a considerable amount of things, but there were almost no answers to my questions... Here I see only going in circles and I am not obliged and I am not going to answer you anymore. I have done my part and will wait for the outcome of the deletion request. By the way, I see that for all these days that I was away, you have not even bothered to answer my questions and comment on everything that I have noted... You just responded about one comment that essentially has nothing to do with deletion at all and that's it? I see that you either don't care or you have nothing more to add. In that case I will probably distance myself from this discussion as well, I have nothing more to do here. Everything you asked me I answered, I also commented and even more, I noted a considerable amount of things, but there were almost no answers to my questions... Here I see only going in circles and I am not obliged and I am not going to answer you anymore. I have done my part and will wait for the outcome of the deletion request. By the way, I see that for all these days that I was away, you have not even bothered to answer my questions and comment on everything that I have noted... You just responded about one comment that essentially has nothing to do with deletion at all and that's it? I see that you either don't care or you have nothing more to add. In that case I will probably distance myself from this discussion as well, I have nothing more to do here. Everything you asked me I answered, I also commented and even more, I noted a considerable amount of things, but there were almost no answers to my questions... Here I see only going in circles and I am not obliged and I am not going to answer you anymore. I have done my part and will wait for the outcome of the deletion request. By the way, I see that for all these days that I was away, you have not even bothered to answer my questions and comment on everything that I have noted... You just responded about one comment that essentially has nothing to do with deletion at all and that's it? I see that you either don't care or you have nothing more to add. In that case I will probably distance myself from this discussion as well, I have nothing more to do here. Everything you asked me I answered, I also commented and even more, I noted a considerable amount of things, but there were almost no answers to my questions... Here I see only going in circles and I am not obliged and I am not going to answer you anymore. I have done my part and will wait for the outcome of the deletion request. I'll remind you again what we are discussing here. You submitted a request for deletion because there were no references, now they have long been provided (one of which is more than reliable), the subject is described by independent references and the WD:N criteria are met, your complaints against me now are completely unfounded, as are your complaints against the sources, since there are no such strict requirements for them as you might think . The fact that you personally disagree with them is not my problem, nor is it Wikidata's problem. Disagreement is in no way a valid reason to remove either the item or the sources . It is completely unacceptable that you are trying to remove anything related to this database in any way. I'll remind you again what we are discussing here. You submitted a request for deletion because there were no references, now they have long been provided (one of which is more than reliable), the subject is described by independent references and the WD:N criteria are met, your complaints against me now are completely unfounded, as are your complaints against the sources, since there are no such strict requirements for them as you might think . The fact that you personally disagree with them is not my problem, nor is it Wikidata's problem. Disagreement is in no way a valid reason to remove either the item or the sources . It is completely unacceptable that you are trying to remove anything related to this database in any way. I'll remind you again what we are discussing here. You submitted a request for deletion because there were no references, now they have long been provided (one of which is more than reliable), the subject is described by independent references and the WD:N criteria are met, your complaints against me now are completely unfounded, as are your complaints against the sources, since there are no such strict requirements for them as you might think . The fact that you personally disagree with them is not my problem, nor is it Wikidata's problem. Disagreement is in no way a valid reason to remove either the item or the sources . It is completely unacceptable that you are trying to remove anything related to this database in any way. I'll remind you again what we are discussing here. You submitted a request for deletion because there were no references, now they have long been provided (one of which is more than reliable), the subject is described by independent references and the WD:N criteria are met, your complaints against me now are completely unfounded, as are your complaints against the sources, since there are no such strict requirements for them as you might think . The fact that you personally disagree with them is not my problem, nor is it Wikidata's problem. Disagreement is in no way a valid reason to remove either the item or the sources . It is completely unacceptable that you are trying to remove anything related to this database in any way. I'll remind you again what we are discussing here. You submitted a request for deletion because there were no references, now they have long been provided (one of which is more than reliable), the subject is described by independent references and the WD:N criteria are met, your complaints against me now are completely unfounded, as are your complaints against the sources, since there are no such strict requirements for them as you might think . The fact that you personally disagree with them is not my problem, nor is it Wikidata's problem. Disagreement is in no way a valid reason to remove either the item or the sources . It is completely unacceptable that you are trying to remove anything related to this database in any way. I'll remind you again what we are discussing here. You submitted a request for deletion because there were no references, now they have long been provided (one of which is more than reliable), the subject is described by independent references and the WD:N criteria are met, your complaints against me now are completely unfounded, as are your complaints against the sources, since there are no such strict requirements for them as you might think . The fact that you personally disagree with them is not my problem, nor is it Wikidata's problem. Disagreement is in no way a valid reason to remove either the item or the sources . It is completely unacceptable that you are trying to remove anything related to this database in any way. I'll remind you again what we are discussing here. You submitted a request for deletion because there were no references, now they have long been provided (one of which is more than reliable), the subject is described by independent references and the WD:N criteria are met, your complaints against me now are completely unfounded, as are your complaints against the sources, since there are no such strict requirements for them as you might think . The fact that you personally disagree with them is not my problem, nor is it Wikidata's problem. Disagreement is in no way a valid reason to remove either the item or the sources . It is completely unacceptable that you are trying to remove anything related to this database in any way. I'll remind you again what we are discussing here. You submitted a request for deletion because there were no references, now they have long been provided (one of which is more than reliable), the subject is described by independent references and the WD:N criteria are met, your complaints against me now are completely unfounded, as are your complaints against the sources, since there are no such strict requirements for them as you might think . The fact that you personally disagree with them is not my problem, nor is it Wikidata's problem. Disagreement is in no way a valid reason to remove either the item or the sources . It is completely unacceptable that you are trying to remove anything related to this database in any way. I'll remind you again what we are discussing here. You submitted a request for deletion because there were no references, now they have long been provided (one of which is more than reliable), the subject is described by independent references and the WD:N criteria are met, your complaints against me now are completely unfounded, as are your complaints against the sources, since there are no such strict requirements for them as you might think . The fact that you personally disagree with them is not my problem, nor is it Wikidata's problem. Disagreement is in no way a valid reason to remove either the item or the sources . It is completely unacceptable that you are trying to remove anything related to this database in any way. I'll remind you again what we are discussing here. You submitted a request for deletion because there were no references, now they have long been provided (one of which is more than reliable), the subject is described by independent references and the WD:N criteria are met, your complaints against me now are completely unfounded, as are your complaints against the sources, since there are no such strict requirements for them as you might think . The fact that you personally disagree with them is not my problem, nor is it Wikidata's problem. Disagreement is in no way a valid reason to remove either the item or the sources . It is completely unacceptable that you are trying to remove anything related to this database in any way. I'll remind you again what we are discussing here. You submitted a request for deletion because there were no references, now they have long been provided (one of which is more than reliable), the subject is described by independent references and the WD:N criteria are met, your complaints against me now are completely unfounded, as are your complaints against the sources, since there are no such strict requirements for them as you might think . The fact that you personally disagree with them is not my problem, nor is it Wikidata's problem. Disagreement is in no way a valid reason to remove either the item or the sources . It is completely unacceptable that you are trying to remove anything related to this database in any way. I'll remind you again what we are discussing here. You submitted a request for deletion because there were no references, now they have long been provided (one of which is more than reliable), the subject is described by independent references and the WD:N criteria are met, your complaints against me now are completely unfounded, as are your complaints against the sources, since there are no such strict requirements for them as you might think . The fact that you personally disagree with them is not my problem, nor is it Wikidata's problem. Disagreement is in no way a valid reason to remove either the item or the sources . It is completely unacceptable that you are trying to remove anything related to this database in any way. I'll remind you again what we are discussing here. You submitted a request for deletion because there were no references, now they have long been provided (one of which is more than reliable), the subject is described by independent references and the WD:N criteria are met, your complaints against me now are completely unfounded, as are your complaints against the sources, since there are no such strict requirements for them as you might think . The fact that you personally disagree with them is not my problem, nor is it Wikidata's problem. Disagreement is in no way a valid reason to remove either the item or the sources . It is completely unacceptable that you are trying to remove anything related to this database in any way. I'll remind you again what we are discussing here. You submitted a request for deletion because there were no references, now they have long been provided (one of which is more than reliable), the subject is described by independent references and the WD:N criteria are met, your complaints against me now are completely unfounded, as are your complaints against the sources, since there are no such strict requirements for them as you might think . The fact that you personally disagree with them is not my problem, nor is it Wikidata's problem. Disagreement is in no way a valid reason to remove either the item or the sources . It is completely unacceptable that you are trying to remove anything related to this database in any way. I'll remind you again what we are discussing here. You submitted a request for deletion because there were no references, now they have long been provided (one of which is more than reliable), the subject is described by independent references and the WD:N criteria are met, your complaints against me now are completely unfounded, as are your complaints against the sources, since there are no such strict requirements for them as you might think . The fact that you personally disagree with them is not my problem, nor is it Wikidata's problem. Disagreement is in no way a valid reason to remove either the item or the sources . It is completely unacceptable that you are trying to remove anything related to this database in any way. I'll remind you again what we are discussing here. You submitted a request for deletion because there were no references, now they have long been provided (one of which is more than reliable), the subject is described by independent references and the WD:N criteria are met, your complaints against me now are completely unfounded, as are your complaints against the sources, since there are no such strict requirements for them as you might think . The fact that you personally disagree with them is not my problem, nor is it Wikidata's problem. Disagreement is in no way a valid reason to remove either the item or the sources . It is completely unacceptable that you are trying to remove anything related to this database in any way. I'll remind you again what we are discussing here. You submitted a request for deletion because there were no references, now they have long been provided (one of which is more than reliable), the subject is described by independent references and the WD:N criteria are met, your complaints against me now are completely unfounded, as are your complaints against the sources, since there are no such strict requirements for them as you might think . The fact that you personally disagree with them is not my problem, nor is it Wikidata's problem. Disagreement is in no way a valid reason to remove either the item or the sources . It is completely unacceptable that you are trying to remove anything related to this database in any way. I'll remind you again what we are discussing here. You submitted a request for deletion because there were no references, now they have long been provided (one of which is more than reliable), the subject is described by independent references and the WD:N criteria are met, your complaints against me now are completely unfounded, as are your complaints against the sources, since there are no such strict requirements for them as you might think . The fact that you personally disagree with them is not my problem, nor is it Wikidata's problem. Disagreement is in no way a valid reason to remove either the item or the sources . It is completely unacceptable that you are trying to remove anything related to this database in any way. I'll remind you again what we are discussing here. You submitted a request for deletion because there were no references, now they have long been provided (one of which is more than reliable), the subject is described by independent references and the WD:N criteria are met, your complaints against me now are completely unfounded, as are your complaints against the sources, since there are no such strict requirements for them as you might think . The fact that you personally disagree with them is not my problem, nor is it Wikidata's problem. Disagreement is in no way a valid reason to remove either the item or the sources . It is completely unacceptable that you are trying to remove anything related to this database in any way. I'll remind you again what we are discussing here. You submitted a request for deletion because there were no references, now they have long been provided (one of which is more than reliable), the subject is described by independent references and the WD:N criteria are met, your complaints against me now are completely unfounded, as are your complaints against the sources, since there are no such strict requirements for them as you might think . The fact that you personally disagree with them is not my problem, nor is it Wikidata's problem. Disagreement is in no way a valid reason to remove either the item or the sources . It is completely unacceptable that you are trying to remove anything related to this database in any way. I'll remind you again what we are discussing here. You submitted a request for deletion because there were no references, now they have long been provided (one of which is more than reliable), the subject is described by independent references and the WD:N criteria are met, your complaints against me now are completely unfounded, as are your complaints against the sources, since there are no such strict requirements for them as you might think . The fact that you personally disagree with them is not my problem, nor is it Wikidata's problem. Disagreement is in no way a valid reason to remove either the item or the sources . It is completely unacceptable that you are trying to remove anything related to this database in any way. In summary: the subject is described by independent sources, i.e. those sources that are not directly/indirectly related to the creator of the website? Yes. Are the WD:N criteria met? Yes, and the item meets criteria #1, #2, and #3, so there is no reason to delete it anymore, period. You should not have any further complaints here, I have done my job and should not discuss anything with you here, so please respect my precious time and work, and please do not bother me on this topic anymore. Regards Kirilloparma ( talk ) 00:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC) Keep regardles of the question of whether or not listing the links with described at URL (P973) is a good idea, the entity gets discussed by multiple sources that are external to the source. ChristianKl ❪ ✉ ❫ 13:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC) In summary: the subject is described by independent sources, i.e. those sources that are not directly/indirectly related to the creator of the website? Yes. Are the WD:N criteria met? Yes, and the item meets criteria #1, #2, and #3, so there is no reason to delete it anymore, period. You should not have any further complaints here, I have done my job and should not discuss anything with you here, so please respect my precious time and work, and please do not bother me on this topic anymore. Regards Kirilloparma ( talk ) 00:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC) In summary: the subject is described by independent sources, i.e. those sources that are not directly/indirectly related to the creator of the website? Yes. Are the WD:N criteria met? Yes, and the item meets criteria #1, #2, and #3, so there is no reason to delete it anymore, period. You should not have any further complaints here, I have done my job and should not discuss anything with you here, so please respect my precious time and work, and please do not bother me on this topic anymore. Regards Kirilloparma ( talk ) 00:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC) In summary: the subject is described by independent sources, i.e. those sources that are not directly/indirectly related to the creator of the website? Yes. Are the WD:N criteria met? Yes, and the item meets criteria #1, #2, and #3, so there is no reason to delete it anymore, period. You should not have any further complaints here, I have done my job and should not discuss anything with you here, so please respect my precious time and work, and please do not bother me on this topic anymore. Regards Kirilloparma ( talk ) 00:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC) In summary: the subject is described by independent sources, i.e. those sources that are not directly/indirectly related to the creator of the website? Yes. Are the WD:N criteria met? Yes, and the item meets criteria #1, #2, and #3, so there is no reason to delete it anymore, period. You should not have any further complaints here, I have done my job and should not discuss anything with you here, so please respect my precious time and work, and please do not bother me on this topic anymore. Regards Kirilloparma ( talk ) 00:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC) In summary: the subject is described by independent sources, i.e. those sources that are not directly/indirectly related to the creator of the website? Yes. Are the WD:N criteria met? Yes, and the item meets criteria #1, #2, and #3, so there is no reason to delete it anymore, period. You should not have any further complaints here, I have done my job and should not discuss anything with you here, so please respect my precious time and work, and please do not bother me on this topic anymore. Regards Kirilloparma ( talk ) 00:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC) In summary: the subject is described by independent sources, i.e. those sources that are not directly/indirectly related to the creator of the website? Yes. Are the WD:N criteria met? Yes, and the item meets criteria #1, #2, and #3, so there is no reason to delete it anymore, period. You should not have any further complaints here, I have done my job and should not discuss anything with you here, so please respect my precious time and work, and please do not bother me on this topic anymore. Regards Kirilloparma ( talk ) 00:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC) Keep regardles of the question of whether or not listing the links with described at URL (P973) is a good idea, the entity gets discussed by multiple sources that are external to the source. ChristianKl ❪ ✉ ❫ 13:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC) In summary: the subject is described by independent sources, i.e. those sources that are not directly/indirectly related to the creator of the website? Yes. Are the WD:N criteria met? Yes, and the item meets criteria #1, #2, and #3, so there is no reason to delete it anymore, period. You should not have any further complaints here, I have done my job and should not discuss anything with you here, so please respect my precious time and work, and please do not bother me on this topic anymore. Regards Kirilloparma ( talk ) 00:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC) In summary: the subject is described by independent sources, i.e. those sources that are not directly/indirectly related to the creator of the website? Yes. Are the WD:N criteria met? Yes, and the item meets criteria #1, #2, and #3, so there is no reason to delete it anymore, period. You should not have any further complaints here, I have done my job and should not discuss anything with you here, so please respect my precious time and work, and please do not bother me on this topic anymore. Regards Kirilloparma ( talk ) 00:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC) In summary: the subject is described by independent sources, i.e. those sources that are not directly/indirectly related to the creator of the website? Yes. Are the WD:N criteria met? Yes, and the item meets criteria #1, #2, and #3, so there is no reason to delete it anymore, period. You should not have any further complaints here, I have done my job and should not discuss anything with you here, so please respect my precious time and work, and please do not bother me on this topic anymore. Regards Kirilloparma ( talk ) 00:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC) In summary: the subject is described by independent sources, i.e. those sources that are not directly/indirectly related to the creator of the website? Yes. Are the WD:N criteria met? Yes, and the item meets criteria #1, #2, and #3, so there is no reason to delete it anymore, period. You should not have any further complaints here, I have done my job and should not discuss anything with you here, so please respect my precious time and work, and please do not bother me on this topic anymore. Regards Kirilloparma ( talk ) 00:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC) In summary: the subject is described by independent sources, i.e. those sources that are not directly/indirectly related to the creator of the website? Yes. Are the WD:N criteria met? Yes, and the item meets criteria #1, #2, and #3, so there is no reason to delete it anymore, period. You should not have any further complaints here, I have done my job and should not discuss anything with you here, so please respect my precious time and work, and please do not bother me on this topic anymore. Regards Kirilloparma ( talk ) 00:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC) In summary: the subject is described by independent sources, i.e. those sources that are not directly/indirectly related to the creator of the website? Yes. Are the WD:N criteria met? Yes, and the item meets criteria #1, #2, and #3, so there is no reason to delete it anymore, period. You should not have any further complaints here, I have done my job and should not discuss anything with you here, so please respect my precious time and work, and please do not bother me on this topic anymore. Regards Kirilloparma ( talk ) 00:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC) In summary: the subject is described by independent sources, i.e. those sources that are not directly/indirectly related to the creator of the website? Yes. Are the WD:N criteria met? Yes, and the item meets criteria #1, #2, and #3, so there is no reason to delete it anymore, period. You should not have any further complaints here, I have done my job and should not discuss anything with you here, so please respect my precious time and work, and please do not bother me on this topic anymore. Regards Kirilloparma ( talk ) 00:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC) In summary: the subject is described by independent sources, i.e. those sources that are not directly/indirectly related to the creator of the website? Yes. Are the WD:N criteria met? Yes, and the item meets criteria #1, #2, and #3, so there is no reason to delete it anymore, period. You should not have any further complaints here, I have done my job and should not discuss anything with you here, so please respect my precious time and work, and please do not bother me on this topic anymore. Regards Kirilloparma ( talk ) 00:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC) In summary: the subject is described by independent sources, i.e. those sources that are not directly/indirectly related to the creator of the website? Yes. Are the WD:N criteria met? Yes, and the item meets criteria #1, #2, and #3, so there is no reason to delete it anymore, period. You should not have any further complaints here, I have done my job and should not discuss anything with you here, so please respect my precious time and work, and please do not bother me on this topic anymore. Regards Kirilloparma ( talk ) 00:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC) In summary: the subject is described by independent sources, i.e. those sources that are not directly/indirectly related to the creator of the website? Yes. Are the WD:N criteria met? Yes, and the item meets criteria #1, #2, and #3, so there is no reason to delete it anymore, period. You should not have any further complaints here, I have done my job and should not discuss anything with you here, so please respect my precious time and work, and please do not bother me on this topic anymore. Regards Kirilloparma ( talk ) 00:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC) In summary: the subject is described by independent sources, i.e. those sources that are not directly/indirectly related to the creator of the website? Yes. Are the WD:N criteria met? Yes, and the item meets criteria #1, #2, and #3, so there is no reason to delete it anymore, period. You should not have any further complaints here, I have done my job and should not discuss anything with you here, so please respect my precious time and work, and please do not bother me on this topic anymore. Regards Kirilloparma ( talk ) 00:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC) In summary: the subject is described by independent sources, i.e. those sources that are not directly/indirectly related to the creator of the website? Yes. Are the WD:N criteria met? Yes, and the item meets criteria #1, #2, and #3, so there is no reason to delete it anymore, period. You should not have any further complaints here, I have done my job and should not discuss anything with you here, so please respect my precious time and work, and please do not bother me on this topic anymore. Regards Kirilloparma ( talk ) 00:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC) In summary: the subject is described by independent sources, i.e. those sources that are not directly/indirectly related to the creator of the website? Yes. Are the WD:N criteria met? Yes, and the item meets criteria #1, #2, and #3, so there is no reason to delete it anymore, period. You should not have any further complaints here, I have done my job and should not discuss anything with you here, so please respect my precious time and work, and please do not bother me on this topic anymore. Regards Kirilloparma ( talk ) 00:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC) In summary: the subject is described by independent sources, i.e. those sources that are not directly/indirectly related to the creator of the website? Yes. Are the WD:N criteria met? Yes, and the item meets criteria #1, #2, and #3, so there is no reason to delete it anymore, period. You should not have any further complaints here, I have done my job and should not discuss anything with you here, so please respect my precious time and work, and please do not bother me on this topic anymore. Regards Kirilloparma ( talk ) 00:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC) In summary: the subject is described by independent sources, i.e. those sources that are not directly/indirectly related to the creator of the website? Yes. Are the WD:N criteria met? Yes, and the item meets criteria #1, #2, and #3, so there is no reason to delete it anymore, period. You should not have any further complaints here, I have done my job and should not discuss anything with you here, so please respect my precious time and work, and please do not bother me on this topic anymore. Regards Kirilloparma ( talk ) 00:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC) In summary: the subject is described by independent sources, i.e. those sources that are not directly/indirectly related to the creator of the website? Yes. Are the WD:N criteria met? Yes, and the item meets criteria #1, #2, and #3, so there is no reason to delete it anymore, period. You should not have any further complaints here, I have done my job and should not discuss anything with you here, so please respect my precious time and work, and please do not bother me on this topic anymore. Regards Kirilloparma ( talk ) 00:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC) Not deleted ChristianKl ❪ ✉ ❫ 12:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)