User talk:Edoderoobot/archive2017

Restricted to NL

Why is this bot restricted to NL labels? As in this case, it would be safe to add the same label (family name) to other Western European languages. --Leyo 22:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

That is mostly, because the script is doing more then setting the label for lastnames, it is also building descriptions for many many types of items (people based on profession, villages based on region,country, etc). And for some items you might safely set the label for a bunch of languages, for other items you better don't. Names of people are built differently in Russia and Hongarije I experienced (Lastname, firstname) where Serbian is making a funny construction that sounds the same but looks ridiculous to us.

If you want the label set for a restricted set of types (P31) and language(s), we can see to make a script for that! Edoderoo (talk) 06:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to Western European languages that excludes Russian, Hungarian or Serbian. It would indeed be to have a script for instance of (P31) family name (P734). --Leyo 21:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Bot contributions

Hello!
Please check your bot's contributions, it's mistaking the English language for Dutch in many, many edits. --Vogone (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

This seems to be going on for at least almost a year now[1]. I suppose there is little chance this task can be continued with the current code and until you have checked manually all of the edits your bot has made. --Vogone (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Considering that apparently this issue has been known since May and no action has been taken and the fact that you didn't even have permission for running this task (Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/Edoderoobot) I have now blocked your bot indefinitely and revoked the bot flag. Yet, I urge you to fix all these erroneous mistakes, per policy you – and only you – are responsible for fixing them. Kind regards, --Vogone (talk) 01:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

As you do not give *any* difflink to what went wrong today, and my only script running was setting the title of scientific articles by the title provided by the PubMedID, I assume you're talking about that script? What can I say? It's about an English published scientific article, that does not, and will never, have a translated Dutch title. My assumption was to use the English title of this scientific work, instead of keeping it blank. This is totally unrelated to what happened last year, as I've changed my description-script to use only labels from other languages for a limited number of wikidata-types (P31). So now I'm blocked with the reference unreliable, without any discussion, without any difflink, and without any discussion where other users where involved? Did you also read the message only one heading up where I explained just before the weekend why my bot is *not* setting other language labels? I now feel punished for something that is'nt even wrong, but without proper discussion ahead, and wihtout anyone else involved, I don't know where to start how to defend myself. Edoderoo (talk) 06:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh I did share a very significant link indicating you do not have any permission to run this bot. Perhaps start defending yourself there. I am astonished this has been going on for over a year. --Vogone (talk) 13:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Then the procedures are unclear, especially to me. I got permisison to operate this bot in november 2015, but now I need to get permission for every time I start it? I never have seen anyone doing such requests, except for the initial request to get a bot-bit. Can you let me know where I have to put my requests, when, and how often? Or is there a manual available "Procedures for operating a bot on WikiData"? It feels to me that there are now special procedures only for me, and they're not written anywhere. What did I do wrong (especially recently) to deserve this special treatment? Edoderoo (talk) 13:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

We have a bot policy. --Vogone (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Which one of the guidelines did I actually break? You probably mean the section "get approval for every script/task/run", but there is no bot operator working this way. I will repeat: you block me because you think my bot made the same mistake as last year, but it didn't. It made English labels for Dutch item fully on purpose for these type of items. There is absolution no relation with the issues last year. Edoderoo (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I did not block you, I blocked your bot. And if you think "there is no bot operator working this way", you are denying realities. See for example User:SamoaBot which has had 45 tasks approved. Feel free to re-request approval for your bot and issues with your bot's edits can be addressed there (with input from other community members), but do not expect me to unblock your bot which was only authorised for "fill[ing] the English label for all streets in Woerden". But the fact that "the issues from last year" were not even fixed/the edits in question not undone makes me doubt you should be operating a bot on this project. Of course, other community members might think different than me and if that is the case I will of course follow consensus and restore your access if needed. --Vogone (talk) 16:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I would still like to get two explanations:

• • • What was wrong with the edits my bot was doing last night
    • What exactly makes that I am unreliable, which sounds like a very serious insult to me

These were the two reasons you gave to block my bot. Edoderoo (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I think I already explained this, but I will rephrase:

1. Unreliable operator: The fact that edits like [2] and [3] (took me just a few seconds to find them looking through May's contribs) were not fixed by you almost a year later despite being aware of the issue is either a sign of ignorance or at least – assuming good faith – a sign of unreliability.
2. Unathorised editing: I think this point has been clarified above.
3. Erroneous editing: Indeed, perhaps I was wrong with my assessment that these particular edits were wrong. If so, I am sorry for that. It doesn't change the fact that this task has not been approved for full-automated editing, though and that past erroneous edits with the bot haven't been fixed is also a sign this bot should not be running for now until this has been done.

Kind regards, --Vogone (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

There has been a lot of discussion about reverting those edits in may, june and july last year, in this period where my bot didn't do any edits. The outcome was at first that someone was going to revert all my edits, something that wasn't done at second thought. Then the conclusion was that it was pretty hard to find *all* the wrong edits, so the ones that were found were fixed. But I now understand that this will follow me for the rest of my life, once we have your attitude. For me it's now clear, you are in the camp of only perfect edits are allowed, all the rest should be banned. People that are not perfect enough are unreliable and should be stopped. I think it's a shame, and I don't believe that this is gonna bring Wikidata any further. I did nearly 15 million edits last year, and a small amount went wrong, and is hard to find back, but for some people it will never be good enough. You perfectly moved this discussion to your superiority over me, you, the perfect one finding several wrong edits in a second, and me being stupid. If it was just your opinion, well, so be it, but you abused your admin-bit to block me, to accuse me without proper investigation or discussion. It's a shame, really. Edoderoo (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Please also try to understand my position. I was seeing a past improper edit, I was then seeing this talk page, then I was seeing even more en labels in your contributions, and then on top of that I was seeing that your bot was running unauthorised according to our rules. I had no other choice than to block your bot, though in retrospective I can see not all points I raised were correct and that my words might have been harsh, but the main issue remains. I would like to apologise to you for the parts where my language hurt you. Thank you, --Vogone (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, if it helps, I can change the blocking summary if you desire it. --Vogone (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

What I do not understand is why you had to show your "power" by revoking the bot-bit. I've been trying to understand your position the whole bloody day, and now I'm just sick of it. For me there is no more understanding of your actions, your explanations nor your sorry. You now broke it, and maybe someone else can fix it, but you for sure can not. I did 14.6 M edits for the love of free knowledge, spending often 12 hours a day or more last year on making that bot do what it had to do. And a year later you come to show that you don't care about old discussions, you don't care at all. It was just not good enough, that was the message that was the left over at the end of this day. In that case it will never be good enough. Edoderoo (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Are you sure? --Succu (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Geboorte- en sterfdatum in omschrijving

Beste Edo,

Ik zag dat je bij Jos van Amelsvoort zijn levensbegin- en eindejaar erbij hebt gezet. Is dat niet dubbelop, want dat komt toch later op de proppen? Collegiale groeten van Klaas `Z4␟` V:  06:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Het zal mijn bot-script wel zijn geweest. De omschrijving is vaak het enige wat je kunt zien bij een zoekopdracht, bijvoorbeeld als je een persoon vanaf een ander wikidata-item wilt linken. Vaak is het beroep wel genoeg om de juiste persoon aan te duiden, maar zeker bij families waar iedereen dezelfde naam heeft en ook politicus was, is het jaartal de enige manier om het verschil te zien. Daarbovenop is het door Wikidata verplicht om een unieke combinatie van label/description te hebben, dus 2x (of 8x) Jan Pietersz Coen, politicus kun je niet opslaan. Edoderoo (talk) 06:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Duidelijk. Zo'n bot doet dat dus bij iedereen, ogeacht of de naam uniek is of niet. Klaas `Z4␟` V:  08:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Ook jij weet niet of er ooit nog een zanger Jan Smit komt in de toekomst. En een slimme meid, is op de toekomst voorbereid. Ten minste, zo was de leus in de jaren '90. Edoderoo (talk) 10:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Special:Diff/476155818

Please teach your bot to become multilingual. Thanks. --Leyo 15:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I had made a start to do the taxo-descriptions in Czech and Slovakian, I believe. Is there a specific language you would like to add? Edoderoo (talk) 05:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd guess that adding English would be helpful at least. But why not taking the languages from Q11173? --Leyo 13:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Leyo, this is what I got for you right now: Trialometano. Good enough? :-) Edoderoo (talk) 10:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. This is a bit special chase since it's about a group of chemicals. What happens if you run your bot over regular chemical compounds such as bisphenol FL (Q29460410) or tributylsilane (Q29460515)? --Leyo 12:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I just did that ... Edoderoo (talk) 12:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, why don't you take the descriptions from Q11173? Like that, e.g. English would be “chemical compound” instead of “chemical substance”. --Leyo 13:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I would do that for these items, and if 'your' items had a P31 of Q11173, it would indeed make sense. Edoderoo (talk) 13:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Both items did actually have that. --Leyo 14:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

You are right, I need to polish up my glasses... Edoderoo (talk) 15:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Next week, sunday, I'll give it a go, for now I have other priorities. Edoderoo (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Special:Diff/481273896, Special:Diff/481276750, etc. --Leyo 09:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

How much longer will you need to have this fixed? --Leyo 08:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC) PS. Even in Dutch, chemische verbinding seems to be a more accurate description than chemische stof.

It's a matter of priorities right now ... Looking for a job, just back from holidays, some personal stuff that needs attention ... it's not such a big job after all to fix this, but I can't find proper time for it recently, but it's still on my list. Sorry for that. Edoderoo (talk) 09:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Then please suspend this bot job until fixed. --Leyo 12:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Last reminder. --Leyo 20:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Now it can last. Edoderoo (talk) 06:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

No, it can't. It's a waste of resources to add the description in only one language when multiple languages could be added at the same time easily. --Leyo 15:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Please have a look at e.g. this edit. It's not magic! --Leyo 20:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Last week I've added about 700.00 new Dutch descriptions, but you complain that I didn't add them to an item in languages I do not speak. I don't really get your point. 83.193.205.163 13:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I do. In the sample edit linked above, Mr.Ibrahembot adds descriptions in more than 20 languages based on the same information, i.e. P31 Q11173. Just stop this task of your bot. --Leyo 22:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Dutch label not simply English label for artist

The English-language descriptive label for Master of the Virgin of Benediktbeuern (Q29473318) can not simply be reused for the Dutch label. I reverted the bot's edit, it has redone the edit. Is there perhaps a possibility not to redo reverted edits again? Thanks, --Marsupium (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I think the main reason is that P31/Q5 is not correct for this item. This seems to be a title, not a person. The label for a person would be John Doe or Mary Little-Lamb, their first and last names. For that reason, a P31/Q5 can be copied across most languages if they are in Latin script (and do not do funny phonetic tricks with the names, like Serbian does). I have translated the title, because my bot will never overwrite a manual given label, so that is the easiest way of stopping this. On the other hand, usually my bot "sees" an item only once or twice, but because of the data-center changes last month my scripts stopped a few times, causing some items to be managed multiple times. Edoderoo (talk) 09:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

AFAIK it is common practice to use P31/Q5 also on items for persons who just have a notname (Q1747829) like Master of Flémalle (Q653719), Master of the Saint Bartholomew Altarpiece (Q632385) and so on.

Thanks for your translation. It is good to know that your bot does not come back to all items endlessly.

Perhaps you could filter out labels that start with "Master of " or better with "Master "!?

Best, --Marsupium (talk) 12:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Description fix needed

Hi @Edoderoo:. Please take a look at the nl description of the items listed below; they contains by two consecutive blank spaces (they are better observable in diffs) - not a major problem, but should be fixed. I've found these entries almost accidentally in the results of one of querries I ran several days ago; I suppose these are not complete results, only partial (either in SPARQL or Quarry my querries times out when trying to find them all).

--XXN, 01:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

These have been fixed. With a little help from Excel and QuickStatements. Mbch331 (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Single author instead of multiple

With this edit a description was applied only listing one of the two main authors. It's pulling the first person off the author list but should grab all of them as the description is misleading. Hazmat2 (talk) 15:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

There is only so much that a script can do, and evaluating if a second author is really necessary can only be made by a human, not by a script. The scripted description is primarily meant to have a description on as many items as we can as a start, else there would be a few thousand Dutch descriptions until now. For many many items a human can make a way better description, so I hope someone will overwrite my description once someone is there to add it. Edoderoo (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

overwriting valid descriptions

[4] this has been a better description before, I have seen some of those edits, please improve your bot. Queryzo (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed it myself too. Usually I skip building a description when something is filled in already, but for this type I made a mistake and skipped that test. I plan to go along all film items once more anyways, and create a better description on it. Edoderoo (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Though I'm on holidays right now so it might be till the end of this month that I will repair this. I need to double check my script first before I can put it to work. }}{{@@ 83.193.205.163 12:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Stad/nederzetting

Je gebruikt nog steeds "stad" terwijl er op een item human settlement (Q486972) staat. Ik wil dat je dit zo snel mogelijk aanpast en alle bestaande beschrijvingen gaat repareren. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Ik heb geen zin in bevelen, en heb elders al aangegeven niet met jouw ongeduld om te kunnen gaan. Je "verzoek" is hierbij naast mij neergelegd. Edoderoo (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

double space

The bot left a double-space between in Duitsland: [5] --Bigbossfarin (talk) 14:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Mens

At some point we removed most English descriptions limited to "human" for people. What is your approach for nl? I noticed there are quite a lot of "Mens" in Dutch. [6]. Shall I remove them so the bot can generate a better one?
--- Jura 19:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I hope it wasn't my bot that added those. I'm in doubt. Mens is not wrong, and it's better then nothing at all, and both scripts and humans can improve such a description, so I think we better leave them. But that does not mean that I encourage people to use tools like descriptioner to create silly descriptions like this. My bot script used to add both nationality and profession, as this starts to be descriptive to repetitive names, like Jan Janssen being a cyclist, a painter and a theologist. If they all three had human it still didn't give any decent information. Edoderoo (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

In general, I think your bot does generate useful descriptions. The diff is your bot's edit. I don't know about the other 700. In English that was some other bot we reverted in the meantime.
--- Jura 20:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Ajuda

Olá amigo estou tentando construir uma entidade chamada a Israel Lucas Góis ele é um investidor muito conhecido aqui no Brasil o grande problema é que toda vez que cria uma entidade um administrador chamado Pasleim, excluir a página acabei brigando com ele e ele está me perseguindo não deixando o efetuar nada, Você poderia por favor me ajudar a criar essa entidade GRUPO CALIMA DIESEL (talk) 03:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

On Wikidata there is already Q10293320 for Gois, you created an article in pt-wiki and a draft in en-wiki as you can see. For the nl-wiki I don't know any person that would be interested by itself to create an article for him, and I personally do not see the need for it, unless he will get known in the Dutch language media. Edoderoo (talk) 07:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I start to understand the issue, you changed/added a person to a wikidata item for a company. That is not how things are connected. I have created Q45803705 for the person Israel Gois, that is now connected to the pt-wiki article about the person. Hopefully that will solve the issues you had? Edoderoo (talk) 07:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)