Hi, why did your bot remove all these links from disambiguation pages from pl.wikiquote? Now they are all not connected, and there are tens of empty items.
About this board
Removal of links from pl.wikiquote
Hey, I did it per request of one user which was reasonable but I can't remember why as it was a very long time ago. you might find that in archives of my talk pages. Tell me if you can't
I already tried before writing you, but I couldn't find anything :-\
I don't quite remember but given the timestamps I guess it was in Wikimania and people wanted me to removed incorrectly connected disambig articles (which they are) and they told me they would connect it to the right item or merge it otherwise I wouldn't do it.
Since a bot's work is very tough in terms of number of edits, it should be better if every edit contains a summary to describe what you're doing, in order to understand why that job was done. I started reverting your edits from Q19269345, Q19267604, Q19269540 and some more, before realizing that there had been a massive removal, and, like, 500 disambiguation pages on pl.wikiquote are now disconnected. Would you please revert them by yourself?
You are right, the next time I will use edit summary for future references to avoid cases such as this one. Sorry it happened and thanks for notifying.
No problem :-) so, would you please revert those edits with your bot?
That would make some people really angry. I need to find a proper fix for this.
Some people who?
The people who told me to remove them.
You mean the people you don't remember who they were and why they asked you to leave pages disconnected and empty items? :-)
Yup :D Don't worry about the reverts. I get them fixed in a proper way.
Ok, let me know when you finish ;-)
All are fixed now. These need merge: Q18668386 Q19267361
Thank you very much, I've merged them all.
Thank you for noticing the problem.
Do you still use this ?
If yes, I think you should have it go through a new permission request.
Not that I know of but if I want to. What's the problem. I already got the approval. Why should I renew it?
That edit is crap and a few similar ones as well.
It seems you don't see the problem with the malfunction.
BTW, can you link the approval?
My question is why do you think it's crap. All values are valid and correct. Regarding the approval, you can find it in the list of them in my bot's user page
Which one applies for this?
- سال نو را تبریک میگویم.
- اشکال عدم قبول برچسب «الگو:برندگان جایزه پولیتزر برای نمایشنامه ۱۹۵۰–۱۹۲۶»؛
با پیغام «خطایی هنگام ذخیرهسازی رخ داد. به این خاطر تغییراتتان کامل نشد. ورودی ناقص:الگو:برندگان جایزه پولیتزر برای نمایشنامه ۱۹۵۰–۱۹۲۶» در چیست؟
الان باید درست شدهباشد.
Involvement in item quality initative?
Is you correct that you participated in drafting the quality criteria as a paid WMDE contractor? I noticed yesterday that one of the tickets in Phabricator was assigned to you.
I think the details on your phabricator account should be on User:Ladsgroup as well. There is some risk of confusion if you use the same account for both.
It seems that you did participate in design of quality criteria module (as a volunteer).
Insertations by staff
Hi. Insertion by staff is not a valid reason to remove anything. Also, he didn't add anything after the protection.
The draft is a work in progress. There are parts that people seem to agree on, other parts that aren't.
There are sections that are still under discussion and there is no consensus for the parts I removed and/or moved to the talk page.
I understand that Epochfail removed things I added and he disagreed with. I don't think I restored them. In the same time, they can't restore parts that people don't agree with him.
Talk, Reach the consensus, then ask me to add/remove stuff or unprotect the page. As an admin, I'm not allowed to do what you're saying.
You probably noticed that Epochfail made a change to the same page about an question that was just brought up on talk and then hide the section on the talk page: Wikidata_talk:Item_quality#Languages. What do you think of this approach ?
It seems normal to restore the consensual parts.
Item to be delete
In RFD there are one or more item proposed for the deletion created by you. If you do not agree you can participate in the debate
Deleting upper and lower bounds that match value
In this edit the bot removed upper and lower bounds because they matched the value. In this case it was appropriate, because elevation above sea level is never an exact value. But how does the bot distinguish between measurements that are necessarily inexact, and those that could be exact? As far as I know setting the value, upper bound, and lower bound equal to the same amount is the only way to indicate an exact value.
Hey, for measurements the bot only removes them when upperbound and lowerbound are the exact same value of the value and I run the bot on properties that are only measurements (e.g. elevation above the sea, etc.)
A few measurements are exact by definition. For example, one international yard is exactly 0.9144 meters; w:Meades Ranch Triangulation Station's position in the North American Datum of 1927 was exactly 39°13'26.686" N and 98°32'30.506" W. Do you have a method of dealing with these occasional "measurements" that are actually definitions, and thus exact?
I actually brought this issue earlier. That's why we work on properties and their units. Based on what we know I don't run it on unit/properties that can have such bleeding edges but we might miss something here.
I suppose if the bot only takes one run through the items, the few exact values could be corrected later. But if the bot is run repeatedly, there will be an edit war between the bot and editors who know the value is exact. How will such an edit war be prevented?
I won't run it repeatedly. just once, I actually mark them once they are done in User:Glorian_Yapinus_(WMDE)/quantity_change_properties
Items for deletion
Hi. It's me again :) There are some 1500 template/category items without sitelinks - candidates for deletion: query resultset. Can you put your bot to go through them to reduce their number?
Hey, all done now.
Kian game models
Hi Amir. I never really played the kian game so far, but wanted to give it a try now. So I don't know if this is a rare situation or if the models are broken, but all the suggestions kian made came from deVil2 and deGermany models, and almost all of them were complete nonsense. Probability was always (only) around 50 %, but still maybe you want to check.
Hey, thanks for trying. Can you tell me if it's okay now or not? Thanks.
Yes, it's better now. I'm on the road right now, so I won't use it more for now, but I will do so some other time. Thank you!
Quick question : do you know where to ask for changes on the API.php page ?
For contexte : on https://www.wikidata.org/w/api.php?action=help&modules=wbgetclaims the second example use the property P2 which doesn't exist, it would be better to use a real property (P27 for instance). Or on https://www.wikidata.org/w/api.php?action=help&modules=wbsetlabel the translation in French is quite strange « considérer la comme un joli imprimé json » (for « and report it as pretty printed json ») and should be something along « présenter la au format json mis en forme ».
Hey, depends, for translations you need to checkout translatewiki.net and fix it there. For examples you need to change the source code. Explain me in details and I make patches for them.
Thank you, I didn't though to look at translatewiki (which is totally logical whan I thinnk about it).
For the second case, I found and corrected MediaWiki:Apihelp-wbsetlabel-example-1/fr.
Can you do it ?
Yes and I'll do soon.