90.191.81.65

Welcome to Wikidata, 90.191.81.65!

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:

• Wikidata:Introduction — An introduction to the project.
• Help:Contents — The main help portal for editing and using the site.
• Wikidata:Project chat — Discussions about the project.
• Wikidata:Tools — A collection of user-developed JavaScript tools to allow for easier completion of some tasks.

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but you may want to consider creating an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. If you edit without a username, your IP address (90.191.81.65) is used to identify you instead. If you have any questions, please ask me on my talk page. 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!

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

ET Items without claim

Hi!

Since you're doing a lot of cleanup around, I thought I'd point you to Wikidata:Database_reports/without_claims_by_site/etwiki in case you're interested in helping with that :) It's a list of items that have a link to the Estonian Wikipedia, but no other statements (so basically we have no idea *what* they are). --Reosarevok (talk) 11:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Got it. I might be able to help with some of these later on. Also, thanks for your work on clearing up this list. :) 90.191.81.65 14:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Problems with your editions at Wikimedia projects

Hi 90.191.81.65,
I have any concepts why you don't register and create a normal user account yet?
I hope you know, that anonymous edits are marked here as high risky. Specially, if that users are newbie and, probably, have not enough knowledge about what they do, and doing mass editions, also in language that most people don't understand and can't verify in simply way. --Jasc PL (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi. You can edit Wikimedia projects both ways, either using a registered account or without being logged in. I'm aware of the limits of anonymous editing, though. As for edits not being sufficiently reviewed then this is a problem for all edits, those made by logged in and logged out users, old and new users. For instance, I've corrected errors in label translations or merges of clearly distinct items that have been in place for more than a year. 90.191.81.65 17:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, your choice dear IP, but you don't understand some things here. Keep in mind also, that you have 3000+? 4000+ today? unpatroled and unapproved editions - if any of admins find some serious bugs (only mistakes, I hope) - all of them can be removed. --Jasc PL (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Public contributions' list reveals that your numbers are exaggerated by far. I may reach, say, 500 edits in a day if I worked hard enough towards it. So? If you suggest that all edits will be removed if particle of them were mistakes, then I'm afraid you're the one who doesn't understand the process here. Anyways, lets continue this discussion when there are actual concerns about particular edits of mine. Currently you are threatening me for nothing. 90.191.81.65 21:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Talinn

This change is utterly stupid, calling Tallinn a miasteczko in Polish is like calling London a hamlet in English. Miasteczko hardly ever exceeds 10,000 inhabitants and it never functions as anything higher than the lowest level of administrative division. But I am not going to argue, you want rubbish, you have it. Maitake (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, @User:Maitake:  Done. Editions of this user are serious problem that must be solved soon. --Jasc PL (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are the one who's causing a problem if you merely act on a grudge from above topic. You seem to ignore the below concerns entirely. I offered two possible solutions to Maitake's concern. Your action is neither, and you don't care to explain how it can be considered sufficient. As for big city (Q1549591), Tallinn may be linked to this in addition to another item which concerns the actual classification of Estonian settlements. Currently this another item is missing. Though, as definition for Großstadt references 19th century source then I've doubts about its modern international use. This probably needs additional source to be proven appropriate in context of Estonia. 90.191.81.65 07:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

This concerns other languages than Polish too. As different countries have different classifications for settlements and there necessarily isn't good match between these classification then I'm afraid that some discord is inevitable if one item is used to tie concepts that are nearest to being an equivalent of English town. Also, consider that if a term is used as part of different classifications, then its meanings as part of these different classifications are not necessarily supposed to compare well. Smallest town (linn) in Estonia has around 1000 inhabitants and largest has over 400 thousand. Translation city isn't necessarily wrong either, but this may look odd for smaller towns. Most settlements of type linn have less than 10,000 inhabitants.) Also, any attempt to sort these between town and city would probably be random.

As for Polish language, possible solution may be to consider if there's another equivalent concept or term to be tied with town that would better match town of varying sizes. Or, possible we should introduce separate item for Estonian settlement type as replacement for current generic item. 90.191.81.65 20:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Estonian administrative divisions and your edits

Hi, I'm writing to you, because Jasc PL asked me about my opinion regarding your edits in the field of Estonian administrative division. I understand that there was an administrative reform in 2017, but as I don't speak Estonian and I don't know Estonian law I cannot judge whether your edits are correct or not in terms of administrative division itself. However, I can see that your edits may have some issues, e.g. if you are changing administrative unit of something, it would be better not to delete the old one, but to add start time (P580)/end time (P582) and/or change rank of the current administrative unit to preferred. In my opinion this approach has the advantage that no data is deleted; but if I misunderstood your edits (and it is not possible to do it that way), please answer here or on my talk page. Wostr (talk) 23:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi. So far my work here has had relatively little to do with administrative reform. My changes to P131 have been mostly about making the location more exact (i.e. county > parish), also about some error correction, lately about moving some values to location (P276) as these stand for settlements which are not administrative entities, at least not in Estonia. I agree that generally historical data can and should be preserved.

I also agree that reviewing other people's work is necessary, but also isn't the general policy to assume good faith? We probably can't expect that one person reviews everything. It's probably reasonable to count on the fact that other people who are more familiar with the subject or who know the language are also doing the reviewing work.

To me it seems that Jasc PL is making quite some fuss over nothing due one's inexperience. Apparently I'm not the only one at whom one's vague and false accusations are targeted. 90.191.81.65 06:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Diamond and graphite

Hello 90.191.81.65. If graphite is a flammable solid because it burns at c. 600°C. Then diamond should be a flammable solid too, because it burns at 720°C. Are you sure? Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I only changed it to use "subclass of" instead of "instance of", assuming that the claim itself is valid. If you think it isn't clear enough why this claim is made, then I'm not against removing it altogether. 90.191.81.65 16:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

600°C-700°C is quite high, borderline. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 17:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Mineral species

"Mineral species (Q55076514) ‎ (‎Undo revision 700184815 by Chris.urs-o (talk): this here is a rank, belongs to subclass tree of metaclasses; instead, mineral (Q7946) is a subclass of chemical compound)"

Chemical formula, type constraint: "Entities using the chemical formula property should be instances of one of the following classes (or of one of their subclasses), but hematite currently isn't: chemical compound"

So I want all IMA-CNMNC valid mineral species to be instance of 'mineral species'. And all instances of 'mineral species' to be a subclass of 'chemical compound'. Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

As for the latter, that's why all mineral species, in additon to being an instance of mineral species, are (should be) a subclass of (subclasses of) mineral (Q7946), which in turn is currently (see below) a subclass of 'chemical compound'.

As for the constraint, per docs there seems to be a problem with the relation of this constraint. As far as chemical compound (Q11173) is a subclass of substance and matter (physical objects), then no abstract class of substance (as compared to chunks of some matter) should be an instance of it. However, apparently people have been very busy "fixing" false positives for this constraint, and so it's a particularly messy situation. I'd assume this has come up in disscussions before one way or another. Possibly the relation of this constraint should be changed to instance or subclass of (Q30208840), just in order to allow more meaningful classifcation as well, for a start. 90.191.81.65 08:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Not to mention, not all substances or molecules or a like with a chemical formula are chemical compounds (two or more different elements). As I understand, minerals like native minerals are instead simple substances. So there's quite some to sort out. :) 90.191.81.65 09:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)