User talk:Mahir256/Archive 3

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Here's the first archive. Here's the second archive. Here's the fourth archive.

Princely states of India[edit]

Hello, how are you ? I thought you might be interested into cleaning that list : https://w.wiki/kJA Filling in dissolution date + replaced by would be highly helpful. Or if you know another Indian wikidata lover. Thanks, Bouzinac 💬●✒️●💛 20:28, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of all assignement P361 to the elections in EU states[edit]

Hi, Why did you revert all this changes ?. Thanks Amadalvarez (talk) 05:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Amadalvarez: I didn't know "Latvia" == "European Union". (Note that the reversions I made were on 2009 election items only.) Mahir256 (talk) 05:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, I have to upload again ?, because the items are about parliament lections in xxxx. Therefore, all of them are P361 of EP elections for the same year. Amadalvarez (talk) 05:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Amadalvarez: (sigh) You should have used 2009 European Parliament election (Q210152) for those items instead of 2009 European Parliament election in Latvia (Q1376175). Now that I've drawn your attention to this, feel free to go back and add the correct P361. Mahir256 (talk) 05:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh. Sorry. I see, caLabel was wrong. Thanks Amadalvarez (talk) 05:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aviette[edit]

Why did you revert my link at aviette (Q101486849) to the corresponding definition in Wiktionary? --RAN (talk) 05:10, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Interwiki links between pages in the main namespaces of Wiktionaries are handled by the Cognate extension. If you add link to a Wiktionary mainspace page to an item, however, then all other links that Cognate would have provided would disappear on that page. In your specific case, there were links to the Armenian, Tamil, and Vietnamese Wiktionaries that were lost with your addition of the link; even if you went ahead and added those three links as well, they go directly against what the Cognate extension was developed for in the first place. Any complaints about this should be directed to the developers of the extension or those who help develop Wikidata's notability criteria. (@TJMSmith, Awellmann, Agaath, Юрко Градовський: if you're also wondering about similar sitelink addition reversions.) Mahir256 (talk) 05:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revert on Lexeme[edit]

Hi Mahir, can you explain the reasoning behind your revert on this? What was disagreeable for you? https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Lexeme:L32914&oldid=prev&diff=1317064748&markasread=639041776&markasreadwiki=wikidatawiki --Thadguidry (talk) 03:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Thadguidry: The definitions you used, having come from a primary source, are exactly what gloss quote (P8394) was proposed for, since attributing an entire meaning to a single author (who likely didn't originate the concept of epigenetics) is rather odd (@Fnielsen: as the proposer of P8394, and @Nikki: who might have thoughts on whether the two sourced definitions should be part of the same sense). Mahir256 (talk) 06:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mahir256: Hi Mahir, Senses and Lexemes are not Items. I'm not sure if you are familiar with our Lexicographical Data Model. epigenetics (L32914) is a Lexeme (a set of char glyphs in a language) that can have different meanings (Senses) depending on region, usage, etc. -S1 -S2, etc. Senses themselves can be linked to Items. Senses are "definitions" like in a dictionary, and sometimes they are created by someone in an academic field, and we absolutely want to capture those as they are often the most important for historical and scientific purposes. In this case, 3 definitions are captured thus far, where one of them is older than the other, and the newer one is a more modern definition used quite often by scientists. It's useful to have historical context, as well as show the authorship and citations when we have them of these definitions (Senses in the Lexeme space). The concept of epigenetics is an Item epigenetics (Q26939) currently already linked to through the use of item for this sense (P5137). But concepts are also in fact, each individual Sense, as the same Lexeme might refer to different concepts (Senses) and where you see this quite often in philosophical discussions, but we won't go there :-) We could have all 4 or 5 concepts of epigenetics as individual Items, but I don't think that's useful for the world's knowledge. Instead it's more useful to have 1 concept/item of epigenetics and then tie that into the Lexeme space with it's rich ability to capture multiple Senses (definitions/concepts).
Now, I do see you are indeed trying to help and be more accurate and introducing instead gloss quote (P8394). That's great, thanks! Now we'll have a slight problem with capturing the modern definition that was made at the Cold Spring Harbor meeting in 2008, but which I think fits perfectly with the usage of gloss quote (P8394). I'll work on that today after my meetings. Thanks for pointing me to that property. --Thadguidry (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of elevation given in feet for different German Airports[edit]

Hello Mahir, could you please explain why you e.g. removed the elevation of 640 ft for the airport Koblenz-Winningen (EDRK) that me and other people added before? As a pilot, I can tell you that it is the official height published by the "Deutsche Flugsicherung" (DFS) and which can be retrieved from all official charts. I know that heights given in feet might look strange, but in aviation, this is the standard (whereas meter is not!) If you removed it because you think it is a duplicate of the metric value I nevertheless highly ask you to not remove the feet values as they help people in the area of aviation. At all places where I added the feet values I also double checked the metric values and I can assure that I only used official papers to get the values from. I can see that you also removed it for other airports where I added thee feet values before. I'll restore those values and kindly ask you to please leave the feet values there :-). Thanks a lot MaximilianLorent

@MaximilianLorent: Hello! Thank you for letting me know about the unit convention for elevations in aviation. I will admit I was under the false impression that meter elevations were preferred in countries that primarily used them, but of the two equivalent values I saw on the items, most of the ones I had removed lacked references, and on Wikidata if there are two equivalent values for a property on an item (one with references and one without) it is preferable to keep the one with references. If in fact the feet values are officially published by DFS (and are in some "official charts" published somewhere), then I ask that you add a reference to the feet values to that effect (perhaps linking to one of those charts), rather than leaving the reader guessing whether those specific figures are in fact stated somewhere or whether someone just converted the meter measurement given. Speaking of this last possibility, when querying elevations it is already possible to normalize units with the "psv:" prefix so that feet measurements and meter measurements can be compared directly without needing to store both as separate measurements (and you're not the only one who may not have been aware of this), so if feet measurements are in fact official as regards airport elevations then adding converted meter equivalents is not necessary. Hope that helps! Mahir256 (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mahir256: Hello Mahir, thanks a lot for your explanation about duplicates and their conversion. From your explanation, I clearly understand that only adding the foot values makes much more sense than adding foot and meter values. Thus, if you want to the meter values can be removed. However, referring to your proposal to add references I do not really know how to proceed here. In fact, all those values are published in the "DFS German VFR AIP" for each and every German airport which is the official source for any VFR flight preparation. However, the "DFS German VFR AIP" is not publically available but must be bought on a yearly basis or is part of a variety of flight planning software. So can you please help me how to correctly reference (I cannot provide a link or anything like this as it does not exist))? By the way: I added the feet values for (all) 480 German airports, so that I would have to add those references for all these airports as well. Thus, maybe someone can help me as it is really time consuming (adding the values took me nearly two days).

WikiProject India Newsletter #6[edit]

Hi Mahir256,

Happy New Year 2021!

You are receiving this message as you are one of the participants of WikiProject India on Wikidata and/or a subscriber of the Wikidata India newsletter. You can find our sixth issue of the quarterly newsletter here, where you can get a quick overview of the Wikidata activities related to India over the last 3 months. If you do not want to receive this kind of notification further, you can remove your username from here.

Regards, Bodhisattwa (CIS-A2K) and Mahir256
(on behalf of WikiProject India)
Sent through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Wikidata label[edit]

Thanks for a quick action on Module:Wikidata label. Something went wrong with my save and it took me few minutes to notice. --Jarekt (talk) 03:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gordy[edit]

Hello, can you set the label in Bengali for Gordy? Thank you. Cat~idwiki (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bennylin:, as the person who blocked this account on idwiki more than ten years ago, can the request above be taken as good faith? Mahir256 (talk) 01:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will admit it: I am User:Bambifan101. I was also User:Kkjj, who was also blocked by Bennylin in jvwiki four years ago. As far as good faith, I just wanted labels in Bengali for movies like Gordy and Babe. I can name some of my favorite topics where I would like the labels set:
  • Gordy
  • Babe
  • Charlotte's Web 2: Wilbur's Great Adventure
  • Teletubbies
  • The Lion King II: Simba's Pride
  • The Rescuers Down Under
  • Lady and the Tramp II: Scamp's Adventure
  • Oliver & Company
  • iCarly
  • Victorious
  • The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie
  • The Princess and the Frog

No, I do not wish harm with the labels. But on the other hand, I know that there are so many, and I wanted articles on them too. Is anyone at bnwiki interested in animated movies and the like? Cat~idwiki (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add the Bengali label for Kali Rocha now? Also, the other pages mentioned. Oliver & Company for example. 104.58.147.208 19:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I got half of Oliver & Company done. Also half of The Lion King II: Simba's Pride and The Rescuers. But I didn't know what to do about Kali Rocha and Charlotte's Web. 2600:1700:53F1:5560:2D26:4E04:A4:AF38 03:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you check these pages edited by me and by 2600:1700:53F1:5560:2D26:4E04:A4:AF38? 2600:1700:53F0:AD70:B15C:265A:6035:6D96 03:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't do Tramp or Rescuers Down Under but I did Lady and the. But how to do Princess, Frog, Tramp II: Scamp's Adventure, and Rescuers Down Under? Another one I didn't know how to do was Dove Cameron. However, bn:অলিভার অ্যান্ড কোম্পানি exists now. Also, at bn:লিভ অ্যান্ড ম্যাডি, I wanted to write more about it, but I couldn't do much. I put "The love story of the two sisters is the main theme of this film." from the Frozen page, but changed it to say drama instead of film. However, this is the text I wanted back in 2017:

The series stars Dove Cameron in a dual role as identical twin sisters with entirely different personalities, with Liv being a girly girl who was an actress in Hollywood for four years and Maddie being a tomboy with a facility for sports, particularly basketball. The series revolves around Liv readjusting to normal family life after production on her hit television program Sing It Loud! ended, as well as the two sisters being best friends despite their opposing personalities and different interests.

Then about Oliver & Company, I wanted to write:

The film is inspired by the famous 1838 Charles Dickens novel Oliver Twist, which has been adapted many other times for the screen. In the film, Oliver is a homeless kitten who joins a gang of dogs to survive in the streets. Among other changes, the setting of the film was relocated from 19th century London to modern-day New York City, Fagin's gang is made up of dogs (one of which is Dodger), and Sykes is a loan shark.

I had asked about Liv and Maddie before back when Kkjj wasn't blocked yet. But I haven't seen it show up yet. Also, for movies like Charlotte's Web 1 and 2 that I put the label on recently, did I get them right? 2600:1700:53F1:5560:C988:C3D8:AFFA:95CC 20:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrillic transliteration improvements[edit]

Hi. Are you able to have a look at this request: MediaWiki talk:Gadget-SimpleTransliterate.js#Change request: Cyrillic characters? Thanks. —Michael Z. 16:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Code of Conduct consultation[edit]

Hello, I am writing to you to personally invite you to the ongoing consultation about the new Wikimedia movement's Universal Code of Conduct. Your feedback as an admin and experienced user is of great value for us, and we are extremely interested in hearing your say.

You might express your opinion at any given time and in any way you may consider useful (for example, publicly at the consultation page or on my talk page, or privately via email). If you wish or feel more comfortable, we can also set up an online meeting in order to discuss your opinions and ideas.

Please remember that there is no such thing as a “stupid opinion” or “worthless idea”, so be bold and feel free to express yourself. :) Also, if you wish you can help us involving other users you know and that you think might be interested in having their say in this!

Hope to hear from you soon! --Sannita (WMF) (talk) 17:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[WMF Board of Trustees - Call for feedback: Community Board seats] Meetings with the Wikidata community[edit]

The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees is organizing a call for feedback about community selection processes between February 1 and March 14. While the Wikimedia Foundation and the movement have grown about five times in the past ten years, the Board’s structure and processes have remained basically the same. As the Board is designed today, we have a problem of capacity, performance, and lack of representation of the movement’s diversity. Our current processes to select individual volunteer and affiliate seats have some limitations. Direct elections tend to favor candidates from the leading language communities, regardless of how relevant their skills and experience might be in serving as a Board member, or contributing to the ability of the Board to perform its specific responsibilities. It is also a fact that the current processes have favored volunteers from North America and Western Europe. In the upcoming months, we need to renew three community seats and appoint three more community members in the new seats. This call for feedback is to see what processes can we all collaboratively design to promote and choose candidates that represent our movement and are prepared with the experience, skills, and insight to perform as trustees?

In this regard, two rounds of feedback meetings are being hosted to collect feedback from the Wikidata community. Two rounds are being hosted with the same agenda, to accomodate people from various time zones across the globe. We will be discussing ideas proposed by the Board and the community to address the above mentioned problems. Please sign-up according to whatever is most comfortable to you. You are welcome to participate in both as well!

Also, please share this with other volunteers who might be interested in this. Let me know if you have any questions. KCVelaga (WMF), 14:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please watch and protection Q560392[edit]

IP continuos vandals there. Thanks a lot. --minhhuy (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done semi'd for a month. Mahir256 (talk) 17:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lots, but please considering a block action for IP, who intentionally vandals and using obscene words (in Vietnamese). --minhhuy (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also done. Mahir256 (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

বানান সংশোধন[edit]

নিম্নলিখিত শব্দযুক্ত আইটেমের বিবরণ সংশোধন করতে আপনার বট চালাতে পারবেন?

  • ভুটানী -> ভুটানি
  • ইরানী -> ইরানি
  • ইরাকী -> ইরাকি
  • নেপালী -> নেপালি
  • পাকিস্তানী -> পাকিস্তানি
  • ইয়ামেনি -> ইয়েমেনি

উদাহরণ, "ইরানী রাজনীতিবিদ" থাকলে তা পরিবর্তন করে "ইরানি রাজনীতিবিদ" দিতে হবে। --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

user:Abolfazlebrahimi64[edit]

Hello, do not be bored, this is the spare account of the above user that you have closed, please take care of it.The above user does the exact edits that the closed account did.--MADdi0X (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I made a request to check the above account whether I did it right or not؟؟Wikidata:Requests for checkuser/Case/Abolfazlebrahimi64.--MADdi0X (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MADdi0X: I moved the "results" text into the "rationale" section, but the request as structured seems fine. Mahir256 (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if I did not do it carefully because I am not yet fully acquainted with requesting an inspection.--MADdi0X (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary[edit]

You are deleting tons of valid links to wiktionary items, is there any reason for this that's not that obvious? Because usually would think of that as plain vandalism. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 07:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sänger: Per WD:N criteria 1.8, sitelinks to the main namespace of a Wiktionary are disallowed. Mahir256 (talk) 07:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And how and where do I see those links in the wikipedia articles? Interwikilinks are, after all, the main reason for creating WD at all, and interwikilinks have to be provided by WD. How will this be guaranteed with wiktionary? Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 07:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sänger: Please read the section "Aviette" above on this page, and also Wikidata:Wiktionary/Sitelinks. Mahir256 (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

pronunciation variety (P5237) with value "French"[edit]

Hi Mahir,

Not sure if this makes a lot of sense. I think people added P407 as it was a requirement for items. In most cases, I'd think it can just be removed from lexeme-forms. --- Jura 15:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jura1: Noted; I've stopped the move and, if you find it appropriate with respect to French lexemes, can remove P407 "French" and P5237 "French" qualifiers on pronunciation. Mahir256 (talk) 15:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel like it, yes, please do. In the meantime the bot that added them was changed to no longer add the qualifier in this namespace [1]. --- Jura 15:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

আন্তঃউইকি সংযোগ[edit]

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q16503 - এখানে //bn.wiktionary.org/wiki/উইকিঅভিধান:আলোচনাসভা যোগ করে দিয়েন। --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Call for participation in the interview study with Wikidata editors[edit]

Dear Mahir256,

I hope you are doing good,

I am Kholoud, a researcher at King’s College London, and I work on a project as part of my PhD research that develops a personalized recommendation system to suggest Wikidata items for the editors based on their interests and preferences. I am collaborating on this project with Elena Simperl and Miaojing Shi.

I would love to talk with you to know about your current ways to choose the items you work on in Wikidata and understand the factors that might influence such a decision. Your cooperation will give us valuable insights into building a recommender system that can help improve your editing experience.

Participation is completely voluntary. You have the option to withdraw at any time. Your data will be processed under the terms of UK data protection law (including the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018). The information and data that you provide will remain confidential; it will only be stored on the password-protected computer of the researchers. We will use the results anonymized (?) to provide insights into the practices of the editors in item selection processes for editing and publish the results of the study to a research venue. If you decide to take part, we will ask you to sign a consent form, and you will be given a copy of this consent form to keep.

If you’re interested in participating and have 15-20 minutes to chat (I promise to keep the time!), please either contact me at kholoudsaa@gmail.com or use this form https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdmmFHaiB20nK14wrQJgfrA18PtmdagyeRib3xGtvzkdn3Lgw/viewform?usp=sf_link with your choice of the times that work for you.

I’ll follow up with you to figure out what method is the best way for us to connect.

Please contact me using the email mentioned above if you have any questions or require more information about this project.

Thank you for considering taking part in this research.

Regards

Kholoud

Entries in no[edit]

I noted your undoing of entries in Wikidata, regarding HD-stars in version no. Of course I would like to contribute to the nb-version, but often there is no entry available to me, when I make entries for en, de, fr, nl, fi, it, es, pt and others. However there's a bot moving entries from no to nb. Do you know why no is still left if we no longer should make entries there?! Deryni (talk) 07:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Deryni: No idea; no one's responding at phab:T44396 about disabling their use. Mahir256 (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thank you for the quick answer. I will leave no further the entries at no. Deryni (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restore My user Page[edit]

Dear, Mahir Morshed Bro, My user page was deleted about a year ago at my request., Because I was a victim of vandalism in social media with this user page screenshot & link for wiki edit. I think there are no more problems now. So I want to restore my user page. --DelwarHossain (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi![edit]

I've watched your presentation for Arctic Knot and just wanted to say it was great to see "that they spoke in Tarragona and Alicante" mentioned. I laughted a lot! Thanks and Moltes Gràcies! B25es (talk) 10:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Item deletion without requesting[edit]

Hey, I saw that you deleted my items but I don't think it was the right way and the clear judgment. All of my items are notable since it states in #2 of the policy. All of the entities are exist in the online and print news sources and that's why I included them into the database but not Wikipedia. You know that each serves different needs. Please undo your actions. Thanks for your contributions to Wikimedia. --Megatron34 (talk) 01:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly says "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." in the Wikidata:Notability policy. All of the people exist and mentioned on serious/publicly available references. If you want I can share some of the Turkish news sources to clear your mind. --Megatron34 (talk) 02:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there @Megatron34:! For two of your items, please take your complaint to @Haansn08:, who nominated those items for deletion on the 19th of this month. For the third, you have my sincerest apologies, and I have restored it; please add your sources to the item in the appropriate places forthwith. Mahir256 (talk) 02:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I didn't see the nomination. Sorry that I missed the opportunity to prove their public visibility. I'll let @Haansn08: know too. But since you were the remover, it may be the best you to recover them instead of Haansn08. I'm bringing the news source to Haansn08's talk page so you both can see them. Thanks again. --Megatron34 (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Mahir256:, sorry for my delayed actions. I talked with Haansn on user's talk page. Can you please restore all my items? I'll add links to them so they all will be cleared as #2 mentions on the WD:N. --Megatron34 (talk) 03:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Megatron34: First please improve the item that I *did* restore with serious reliable sources first, and then I'll consider restoring the other two. Mahir256 (talk) 03:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mahir256: added. --Megatron34 (talk) 16:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Megatron34: Would you please add these as references on the statements which your sources can support? It's more meaningful to know that, for example, that journalist's date of birth is stated in a given source, rather than adding it as a described at URL (P973) statement (which, given that most recent uses of that property are by spammers, makes your item look more like spam). Mahir256 (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mahir256: mm OK. Thanks for letting me know. It's done for sure. --Megatron34 (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mahir256: can you check if I did this true? --Megatron34 (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions/Archive/2021/06/29#Lexeme:L469045[edit]

Hi Mahir256,

Would you kindly explain why you deleted the above lexeme? It doesn't seem to me that there was a consensus to do so. --- Jura 12:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

সুরক্ষা[edit]

আইটেমটা সুরক্ষিত করে দেয়ার জন্য ধন্যবাদ। একই রকম আরেকটি আইটেম পেয়েছি Tanvir Ahmed Shovon (Q92348746)। সুরক্ষিত করে দিয়েন। -- Ahmad Kanik 💬 15:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Mahir256 (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

patroller[edit]

hi will you please promote me to patroller HamzhaSaleem (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HamzhaSaleem: No, I will not do that. Ask on WD:RFP. Mahir256 (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

on thank you sir HamzhaSaleem (talk) 17:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete request[edit]

I was contributing on wikidata and found Q107359893 not notable her wikipedia also got deleted can you delete this item ID Q107359893 HamzhaSaleem (talk) 17:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notice[edit]

Dear Mahir256,

please note I deleted Q107024348, which you restored a week ago. I only noticed the restore after deletion, but I do not see any indication of notability in the item, so I think deletion is the best option. A subject with 1 follower on Twitter, 94 on instagram, does not seem to be very notable. There were no references, no links on Wikidata and no interwiki links. Moreover only a small amount of google hits, and no newsitem specifically about the subject, only mentions of the name. As such, I think deletion of the item is best for now.

Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 08:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Taketa: That's not a problem; please see the talk page section five sections above this one to see how I had hesitated in my restoration of those items. Mahir256 (talk) 13:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes of Guía Digital del Patrimonio Cultural de Andalucía ID (P3318) elements with Twofivesixbot[edit]

Hi:

First to thanks the impressive work of cleaning the elements of Andalusian heritage I created. That was my first serious project and, you saw, I made lots of novice mistakes. Still there are some other pending corrections, so I'm interested in learning the process and tools you used. I'm a proficient Linux user so you can get into technical details if needed. Thanks :) --Olea (talk) 11:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LTA vandal[edit]

IP 37.130.120.209 Thanx bro. --E4024 (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

labels International Kolkata Book Fair[edit]

hi Mahir256, I've created an item for each edition of the International Kolkata Book Fair. I would appreciate it if you could add labels to them in Bengali. Thank you in advance. --1Veertje (talk) 21:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revert om image on sense[edit]

Hi, I did not understand your reasoning here https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Lexeme:L248016&oldid=prev&diff=1475757672 could you clarify or better yet open a discussion in Wikidata_talk:Lexicographical_data? We already had a discussion about images on senses a while back, see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata_talk:Lexicographical_data/Archive/2020/12#Suggestion_for_policy%3A_no_images_on_lexeme_senses.--So9q (talk) 06:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@So9q: While I recognized Wikidata should not be censored, I'm sure the image of that sense you added, being that belonging to an actual person, would deter others from contributing more information to that lexeme's other senses and forms, and so out of that consideration only I removed the image. (A stylized image à la Seedfeeder (Q20650643) might well be less controversial.) Mahir256 (talk) 06:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I took a look at the drawings of erected penises and found none that was suitable. See https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/Seedfeeder&ilshowall=1. Since the articles in English Wikipedia also show images of real persons I see no reason to limit ourselves to drawings only. Ifound an ancient drawing that I used instead.--So9q (talk) 07:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removed constraint that causes violations[edit]

Hello Mahir256 Hello Why this ? —Eihel (talk) 17:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eihel: At the time I could not seem to use that property on lexemes to cite references on them, so for that reason I had removed that constraint. Now that I see it has been restored and augmented (so that it no longer causes problems on lexemes), I recognize that my removal was mistaken. Mahir256 (talk) 17:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please, if that doesn't work, don't remove this constraint (and property scope constraint (Q53869507)), even if you see violations, because it causes other violations and it is valid for all properties having constraints. Thank you. —Eihel (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Q107031508[edit]

ভাইয়া, এটাও সম্ভবত অপসারণের যোগ্য। প্রচারণার উদ্দেশ্যে তৈরি করা হয়েছে।Yahya (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

rm P143 cebwiki if P143 svwiki or P248 GeoNames also present[edit]

Hi Mahir256,

What's this? e.g. at [2]. Was this discussed before? I don't think cebwiki should be removed. --- Jura 06:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jura1: What Sverker pulled in from GeoNames in his bot creations is mirrored at svwiki and cebwiki; moreover there is no difference between what cebwiki offers, on one hand, and what is reflected in the sources that power it or other wikis that mirror those sources, on the other. It follows that the specific removal being performed does not cause the loss of any information—none of these edits is supposed to affect statements that are only cited to cebwiki. Mahir256 (talk) 06:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
svwiki is deleting such articles. The advantage of having cebwiki is that it's a clear indicator how a potentially problematic item was generated.
If there is no approval for your bot's edits, please revert it. --- Jura 06:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jura1: If a statement is cited only to enwiki, and the article is then deleted, does that mean we are obligated to delete the statement as well? What the svwiki admins are doing is their business, but what I noted regarding the relationships between svwiki, cebwiki, and GeoNames in my previous message still stands, and thus I would contend that any future interest in cleaning up geographical statements must also consider what was pulled in from now-deleted svwiki articles. Statements referenced to GeoNames are already a suspect class of claims, just as any statements only referenced to a particular Wikipedia should rightfully be. Mahir256 (talk) 06:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you delete cebwiki, but not svwiki "imported from"?
In any case, I don't think there is a consensus for large scale removals as done by your unapproved bot task. Please stop and revert it. --- Jura 06:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jura1: To also delete P143 svwiki in addition to P143 cebwiki severs a link between some contestible statements and the source of their information, which I am not trying to do. Very few statements have the svwiki/GeoNames or svwiki/cebwiki/GeoNames reference combination anyways, so that is a much smaller problem. For now I have stopped the edits, but I stand by what has already been done, and I contend that exactly no one who may be interested in improving the affected statements or the items of which they form a part has been harmed or hindered by the edits. Mahir256 (talk) 06:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"harmed or hindered"? I doubt that happens with edits ever. Besides, is there ever a way to "improve" statements about identifiers? The problem is that it complicates searching from where information comes from. --- Jura 07:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks there isn't much interest in these. If you absolutely feel the need to delete them, don't feel "hindered" to proceed. --- Jura 07:04, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mother (noun)[edit]

Hi, why these removals? [3] and [4] —Vis M (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vis M: If you take a look at the graph of translations and synonyms of the concept 'mother', you'll see that there is already a path between the Malayalam and the English senses. Shortening this path via a direct connection is somewhat out of place compared to the connections that already exist (generally between geographically adjacent areas or in the same language family—with the possible exceptions of connections to the Sumerian, but hey that's ama/𒂼 (L1) so it's special), and directly connecting everything to English or any one other language, as was the case with this and the 'water' senses at one point, may promote the assumption for others that English or said other language is the center of the lexicographic universe, which is not particularly useful. Mahir256 (talk) 16:28, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking that the property translations will be used akin to the translations section of Wiktionary. :( —Vis M (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decision regarding Q108042919[edit]

What kind of joke decision did you make regarding the data object Manuel Merz (Q108042919)? Which point of the relevance criteria does the good gentleman fulfill? None at all and therefore the data objekt has to be deleted. Therefore I ask you to reconsider your decision, otherwise I will contest the decision on the administrators noticeboard‎. --Gymnicus (talk) 12:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gymnicus: After thinking about it a bit, you're right; the second criterion isn't yet satisfied and an argument for it satisfying the third is tenuous. I have now deleted it; apologies for the anger caused. Mahir256 (talk) 14:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mahir256: I'd like to link Q108042919 as a participant on Data Quality Days 2021 (Q108461073) and Wikimania 2021 (Q63949333). Can the item be un-deleted? --Azertus (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm bothering you again! Are you really sure that just participating in these two things makes the Mr. relevant? I do not believe that. But if you see it that way, I would have the decision checked on the admin page. --Gymnicus (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gymnicus: If you're planning to throw a fit again, please direct it at Azertus and not myself; while I have restored the item, I'll respect decisions made by other admins on what to do with it later. Mahir256 (talk) 18:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I conclude from this that I can let my fit run free on the admin page. Is that right? --Gymnicus (talk) 18:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gymnicus: Yes, go right ahead! (You're already the topic of one thread on that noticeboard; perhaps with another bird we might be able to kill two birds with one stone (L40708).) Mahir256 (talk) 18:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ENWQ Juhi Smita ‎[edit]

Your speedy-tagged q:en:Juhi Smita is now deleted, just for your information. I'm not familiar with WikiData deletion process, so I prefer to rely on your discretion. Cheers, --Aphaia (talk) 14:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Q108269974[edit]

Deleted due to promotional / spam. Not a valid deletion response. Please follow the process to discuss legitimacy and undelete pending further review. --Toddman4 (talk) 03:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Little help on bn.wikipedia[edit]

Hi! As far as I understand, bn:মীনাক্ষী চিতরঞ্জন and bn:মীনাক্ষী চিত্তরঞ্জন are about the same person; could you merge them, so that the respective items could be merged? Thank you very much in advance, --Epìdosis 09:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One similar case: bn:ইন্দিরা মিরি (ভারতীয় শিক্ষাবিদ) and bn:ইন্দিরা মিরি. Thanks! --Epìdosis 10:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Probably also: bn:মোহাম্মদ নজরুল ইসলাম and bn:নজরুল ইসলাম ভূঁইয়া. Thanks, --Epìdosis 12:29, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain this more[edit]

[5]? I don't understand why you remove Wiktionary link from wikidata? --Piotrus (talk) 10:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: If you read mw:Extension:Cognate, you will see that it describes the current system which links Wiktionary pages of the same name across Wiktionaries—wikt:en:this is automatically linked to wikt:fr:this and wikt:pl:this, for example—without the need for anything to be set up on Wikidata. If a Wiktionary page is linked to a Wikidata item, however, then all of the link handling that Cognate provides is bypassed—if wikt:en:this were linked to This (Q254046), then it would no longer link to the frwiktionary or plwiktionary versions of that page. See also subpoint 8 of the first criterion of WD:N. Mahir256 (talk) 10:43, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see. My concern is that the wikidata pages have empty sections for wiktionary links. That doesn't seem good or intended? Piotrus (talk) 10:48, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: This is intended for most general items for concepts, since a concept can be expressed with multiple words across languages, not all of whose pages on a given Wiktionary can be linked at the same time. The Wiktionary section of the sitelinks is meant for use on items for categories/templates/modules/etc. (basically stuff that is not in the main namespace of a Wiktionary). Mahir256 (talk) 11:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How we will see unregistered users[edit]

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Harmonize US 2010 Gazetteer Files[edit]

Hello Mahir256, I believe we have a huge issue. Your bot Twofivesixbot seems to have done a task saying "harmonize references to 2010 U.S. Gazetteer Files (Q107569809)". However, this has destroyed very many of the statements about the US 2010 Census data (that of course can be retrieved from the Gazetteer files, but are core Census data, which is why the statement stated in (P248) = 2010 United States Census (Q523716) is correct and your bot's edit are not really. Also, the web link got removed without reasonable explanation to me. Example, as one of thousands: [6].

As I had put a lot of care into the Census 2010 statements that your bot has overwritten: Where was this change discussed? Who did agree to your opinion that this is a correct approach? Why did you not contact me before starting this faulty job?

Please give me more background information about this job. To be honest, I am pretty angry because of you having done this without informing me beforehead. Yellowcard (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Yellowcard: Welcome back after so many months! I don't see any information being lost as a result of my edits. The only thing that was changed in all of those edits was a reference from the census generally and a URL to an item 1) with, as its official website (P856), the exact same URL, 2) which due to its widespread use as a result is now indefinitely semi-protected (so that said URL is unlikely to change by the unconfirmed), and 3) which I intend to keep on my watchlist to be aware if any of the (auto)confirmed change it. @Dcflyer: who created the useful item that allowed this to happen. Mahir256 (talk) 21:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will strongly maintain that the edits I made do not constitute destruction (nor construction, really) of information in any way/shape/form, but are instead meant to make references to a specific source of information consistent across all items that refer to it, and given that there was already an item which was made to refer to the exact same resources your URL pointed to (and in fact had that exact same URL within it), it was an entirely correct decision in my view to adjust references to that resource in favor of the item which was created for it. I took care not to add/change/remove any other properties within the references (for example, if there was a retrieval date before my edits, it was maintained after them, and if there was no retrieval date before my edits, there was none after them), and I doubt you will find others who consider the duplicating of a generic URL for an information source across references—that does not point to a specific record for a specific city/town nor has any indication of where in said URL to find some piece of information—preferable to pointers in those references to an item for said information source. I thus view it as a serious error on your part to characterize my edits as being reckless or vandalistic in any way. Mahir256 (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)
I understand your point, but I do not consider it valid. To avoid misunderstandings, let us stick closely at Addyston (Q353439) (with [this diff) for now as a sample. So:
  1. Why did you change stated in (P248) in that refernces from a correct to a not-really correct statement?
  2. Where is the reference to 2010 United States Census (Q523716) that this data originally comes from? (The Gazetteer files are just an annual publication, data source is different for census and non-census years.)
  3. You removed the URLs from the single items with the reason that it can be found in a linked item. Where is the consensus for this, where did you discuss this?
  4. Where is the discussion about this bot run according to our Bot policy?
Thanks, Yellowcard (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Response after edit conflict: I am even more confused. Yes, we can discuss about the URL aspect and whether or not it makes sense to remove it from the single items as it is in any of the linked items. I am open-minded for this thought, but this is - as you know - a community project, so I am really confused that you now say it was your decision. As you have realized that I had added probably most of the statements that you changed, why have you not discussed this before?
Still, I have no clue why you changed all this from "US Census" item to "Gazetteer File" item. This is a wrong change in my opinion (also here, I am open-minded to arguments - but where is the discussion that I must have missed?).
Eventually, I have not called your bot's edits recktless or vandalism, where do you take this from? Can we potentially focus on objectives instead of getting personal? Thanks. Yellowcard (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Yellowcard: My apologies for the confusion you are experiencing after some months time away. (Perhaps I thought you had disappeared, five months being a long time, and thus didn't think you'd respond to any prior informing?)
  1. Where do you keep getting that linking to the Gazetteer Files isn't correct? How does @Dcflyer: referring to the data at a URL fundamentally differ from your references to information at the exact same URL?
  2. That might have been an oversight by Dcflyer when the item was created, which I have temporarily rectified by adding a main subject (P921) statement to it. Maybe some other property might be better, I don't know, but that doesn't mean making a link to the census item on the gazetteer files item isn't possible. Besides, the 2010 Gazetteer Files are noted at the URL as being "Census gazetteer files", which is similar wording to the 2000, 1990, etc. Files pages but is different from the 2012, 2013, etc. Files pages in that the latter set of these lacks "Census" in their description.
  3. I submit to you that while I try always to be careful with the edits I make on this project, I employ considerably more caution with those I make with my bot account. I do declare those tasks on my bot account's user page which can add or subtract information to Wikidata items, and do not tackle anything potentially controversial through those tasks, preferring instead to do so with my regular account. I have seen expressed from other editors in other fora understanding and approval of the edits made in this instance due to the basis and rationale I was providing for it now and previously, and because in my view the edits in this instance fell squarely in the realm of maintenance (since, and I can't stress this enough, no information was changed or lost, whether or not you find this statement 'valid', and in fact had the desirable side effect of making the information's accessibility more consistent), I felt tranquil enough and comfortable going through with them. You are completely free to contest my edits on the Administrators' noticeboard if in terms of content or accessibility or integrity or another dimension where users of Wikidata's data (whether on other wikis or entirely off-wiki) may have some useful concern something actually is lost through my migration (is changing 'pr:P854' to 'pr:P248/wdt:P856' that hard to do in a SPARQL query?). Let not your anger blind you from the benefits of these edits and only highlight supposed risks that I contend are purely imaginary. Mahir256 (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to confuse "being present" with "making edits". I have been around all the time, ever since 2005. I do not understand what difference this would make either way, so let us once again focus on the facts.
  1. I asked open-minded questions about your approach, why don't you answer on content level rather than switching to meta level all the time? Your way of discussion is not fair. There might be different approaches, and potentially your approach is better than mine regarding the URL. The only thing about the URL is that this should be discussed with the editor FIRST and removed after having found a consensus. Do you disagree with that?
  2. You keep referring to another user and another item. That is not valid. The fact that you have removed stated in (P248) = 2010 United States Census (Q523716) from all these statements is a content error. The fact that you bring up (the 2020, 2010 and so on Gazetteer files have different names) just supports this fact: The data source and the method of how these data is retrieved is different. Therefore, the edits you did about P248 are wrong.
  3. It is not about SPARQL or so (besides the fact that "changing 'pr:P854' to 'pr:P248/wdt:P856'" leads to a much lower performance and therefore timeout issues when using this high amount of affected items, no good but it is as it has been for years). It is about the general design and that you removed correct statements (source: Census) to wrong statements (source: Gazetteer files). Also, as you can see, I have performed all the edits using QuickStatements and have structued data for this. If I update the data now, all your bot's edits will be gone again. There is no doubt: We need to find a consensus. Your approach by "deciding" something and realizing this by mass bot changes is a no go. I am really interested in finding a solution with you here, but if you keep insisting that your approach was correct without opening to the content discussion, we might indeed move this discussion to another place (I would prefer the Bureaucrats' noticeboard though, as the use of a bot account to make controversial or wrong edits and not opening to the discussion rather concerns your bot flag IMO).
In a nutshell: We have different opinions about how to design these references. For the URL, we both have good points - this just should have been discussed before making the changes using a bot, but I am open to your approach. Regarding the P248 statements, I still consider your changes wrong (on content level). Here, knowledge about the US Census is necessary to have an opinion, and you have realized yourself that your changes were wrong by having a look at the Gazetteer file naming differences between census and non-census years. Applying these changes using a bot is therefore very critical IMO. Also, we need an agreement about the future design of the references about Census data in items of US places.
Suggestion about the next steps: We can agree upon your approach about the URL and find a better way of using the Census/Gazetteer file refernce without involving Bureaucrats, and you come back to a discussion mode with an open-minded attitude. What do you think? Yellowcard (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mahir256/Archive_3&oldid=2001199086"