User talk:Laddo

This user is busy in real life (Q1058876) and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives 2019 2017 - 2018 2015 - 2016 2013 - 2014

You marked Q5720848 and Q21453209 as different. Are you sure? This article suggests otherwise. --Emu (talk) 10:56, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Emu: Hi Emu, though I don't remember much, I likely set the statement based on major differences in WD occupation, date & place of death (UK vs. Poland). en and de articles have no overlap, apart from the German one referring to 1923 as a possible date of death. However your article is troubling, seems well-documented and pretty clearly joins both persona into the same guy. I have no extra document in favor or against the merge, the birth date & place seem to match... I leave it to you, but an extra source would be welcome :/ Cheers - Lαδδo chat ;) 12:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your quick response, I have posted the article on the de.wp discussion page and will think about it. --Emu (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, an item that you have edited (and you are the only non-bot editor) is considered empty and will be deleted in 72 hours if it doesn't improve. Your automated cleaner, Dexbot (talk) 06:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello –

This edit to "administrative territorial entity" (Q56061) was in error. Because subclass of (P279) is transitive (for example, see this tree of parent classes), such errors lead to numerous false inferences. When using instance of (P31) and subclass of (P279), check the description of the item you use as the statement value, and make sure your use complies with Help:Basic membership properties. (In particular, "A" is a subclass of "B" only if all instances of "A" are also instances of "B".) There is often another property better suited to expressing the relationship you had in mind; you can search for one here. Thanks! Swpb (talk) 07:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, noted. Lαδδo chat ;) 13:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I see that in 2020 you created de Paris (Q104539924) as surname; however, in the 19 items that use it as of now I think it can always be considered as an indication of provenance and not as a proper surname (similarly to e.g. in Aristobulus of Cassandreia (Q544987)). I would propose to delete the item and to change the value of family name (P734) in the aforementioned 19 items to novalue. Do you agree? Thanks, --Epìdosis 14:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Epìdosis, thanks for bringing this to my attention. You are most likely correct for people who lived before years 1500s or so. At the time I did that, the distinction between family and place of origin was not clear to me at all. OK to replace family name (P734) with novalue, just double-checking if Paris (Q90) should appear in either place of birth (P19) or place of death (P20), or in some other property. Will you take care of all 19 items?

Also if the de Paris (Q104539924) family name is to vanish, the corresponding Commons category De Paris (surname) should also be removed; it only lists 5 items. I could handle those if you wish. Lαδδo chat ;) 03:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have just finished the fixes. I keep the Commons category and de Paris (Q104539924) because "de Paris" is really the surname of one person, Georges de Paris (Q5546925). Bye, --Epìdosis 08:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]