User talk:Oleryhlolsson

Welcome to Wikidata, Oleryhlolsson!

Wikidata is a free knowledge base that you can edit! It can be read and edited by humans and machines alike and you can go to any item page now and add to this ever-growing database!

Need some help getting started? Here are some pages you can familiarize yourself with:

• Introduction – An introduction to the project.
• Wikidata tours – Interactive tutorials to show you how Wikidata works.
• Community portal – The portal for community members.
• User options – including the 'Babel' extension, to set your language preferences.
• Contents – The main help page for editing and using the site.
• Project chat – Discussions about the project.
• Tools – A collection of user-developed tools to allow for easier completion of some tasks.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask on Project chat. If you want to try out editing, you can use the sandbox to try. Once again, welcome, and I hope you quickly feel comfortable here, and become an active editor for Wikidata.

Best regards! Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Possibly fictitious people

Hi. I've noticed that you have been removing properties from various people items, claiming that they are probably fictitious people. That isn't a very productive way to do things as another editor will follow behind you and recreate the entries from the original sources. If you have another source that disputes the information we have recorded, we can mark the relevant entries as disputed. That way readers can see both the claim and the dispute rather than finding the information at other sources without knowing about the dispute. As an example from one of your edits, do you have a source to dispute the claims by The Peerage and WikiTree that Sigrid of Halland (Q75437282) was the mother of Ulf the Earl (Q1710670)? From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

NO, the true matter in this case is that there are NO - as in absolute ZERO - sources to support what the "The Peerage" writes about Ulf the Earls mother. "The Peerage" isn't a source in itself, but merely a collection of statements about the genealogy among peerages and royalties - sometimes, as in this case, the quality of these statements is extremely low, and has nothing to do with the way proper historians and genealogists validates real historical sources. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 21:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I've brought this up at WD:PC#Ways to mark possibly fictitious genealogy entries and another user has pointed me to Help:Deprecation. This keeps the entry in the database but marks it as false. That way future users don't try to recreate the false data as fact. I will recreate the relationship but mark it as deprecated. I notice that you have been blanking other pages where you have disagreed with the recorded information. Please use the deprecated function rather than wipe information that someone will restore later. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:40, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I am the author of the largest documentary Viking / Norse collection on Wikipedia in the field. I did notice some of your reversals. Although there are doubts about the genealogy of some semi-legendary characters, there is a place for a doubt. I have been documenting hundreds of articles for many years on the Scandinavian High Middle Ages, sagas, characters, battles, and medieval literature. Before reverting again, I invite you to my discussion page so I am sure that can share the right source, even if it is a conjecture or keep doubts about it. Keep safe.--Gilwellian (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I already did beg you once to contact the authors of the articles before reversing. It is not very polite and other editors seem to suffer from your edits as well. If we agree that Harald Blatand existed, the lack of accredited sources on consorts or characters that appear in related sagas or deeds, it is possible that they also existed. Eliminating any hint of information is anything but rigorous. Thanks.--Gilwellian (talk) 13:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Merge of organisations

Hi @Oleryhlolsson:, You reverted my addition of dissolved, abolished or demolished date (P576) to The National Union of Danish School Pupils (Q12311798) referencing Danish Central Business Register (Q795419) (CVR). In my experience, CVR is not so useful as source for creation dates, especially for old organisations.

In Danish company law, a merger can be implemented either by creating a new company or by choosing one of the merging companies as the continuing company. This is mostly a formal decision based on accounting/legal/tax considerations. In the eyes of the outside world (including Wikidata), the two old companies cease to exist and are replaces (P1365) a new company – at least if the merging organisations were of equal size/importance. On the other hand, if one of the merging companies is much larger, or if the name of one of the companies is preserved in the new company, it may be reasonable to say that the other company is merged into (P7888) the continuing company.

In any case, if an item has either replaces (P1365) or merged into (P7888), I think it is relevant to specify an dissolved, abolished or demolished date (P576) also.

I don't know much about the organisations involved in this specific merger into The Association of Danish Pupils (Q12307654), but since the new organisation does not reuse the name of any of the merged companies, I think it is fair to say that the two old organisations cease to exist and the new organisation is created, all on the same date (April 2004), i.e. I suggest reversing your reversal. Do you agree? --C960657 (talk) 21:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

"It's complicated" as the dialogue between Harry Potter and Griphook. It will take some more days to answer this in a truthfull and usefull manner. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 07:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)