Open main menu

User talk:Egon Willighagen

User talk ArchivesEdit

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global surveyEdit

WMF Surveys, 18:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia surveyEdit

WMF Surveys, 01:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

LexemeEdit

Hi,

I was about to revert your diff Special:Diff/683808736 on Lexeme:L2 but LydiaPintscher did it before me. A lexeme is a word inside "one and only one" language. If you add several languages, it's not an lexeme any more but an item, and we already have the Q item for that ;) (first (Q28469711) in this case).

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 12:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@VIGNERON:, ah, thanks. Sorry for adding noise; I was learning, and actually followed another item which had a translation, which someone asked about... thanks for fixing it. --Egon Willighagen (talk) 17:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
No problem. I just act quickly so nobody else would see the same mistake ;)
And if you have any question, feel free to ask on Wikidata talk:Lexicographical data or elsewhere.
Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 17:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

TerugdraaienEdit

Beste Egon Willighagen,

Dank voor het terugdraaien van mijn onbeholpen bewerking op Mark van Loosdrecht. Oorzaak drank vermoedelijk ;-D
Iets anders: 'k Dacht een samenvoegverzoek te doen voor Tsingtao, maar kwam er net achter dat het onzin is. Kun je dat ook terugdraaien?
Zo kom je elkaar nooit tegen, dan weer een paar dagen achter elkaar meermaals.
Terzijde: is Egonw een sokpop van je? Zõ ja: is het niet lastig om onder twee bijna dezelfde namen te bewerken; zo nee: worden jullie twee weleens verward met elkaar?  Klaas `Z4␟` V:  10:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Terugdraaien, dat is het mooie van een wiki, toch? Wat is er precies mis met Tsingtao? Als je hem wil deleten, kan je dat More -> "Request deletion" aanvragen. Ik heb die powers niet. Het probleem van meer dan 1 account is meer de werkdruk en daardoor gebrek aan tijd hoe ik dat fatsoenlijk kan oplossen... Mijn eerste Wikipedia accounts stammen uit de tijd voor de gezamelijke onderliggende account, en had een voor NL en de ander voor EN, en dat proberen te herstellen heeft er juist voor gezorgd dat ik er toen ook twee op NL had (of zo, het is lang geleden). Is het belangrijk dat ik dit oplos? --Egon Willighagen (talk) 10:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

BleomycinEdit

Hallo Egon Willighagen, diese Änderung ist nicht hilfreich: d:Q415571 = CAS 11056-06-7 = Mischung aus 55 – 70 % Bleomycin A2 und 25 – 32 % Bleomycin B2 (siehe auch die Tabelle auf de:Bleomycine). Für Mischungen ist es letztlich überhaupt nicht sinnvoll, eine PubChem-CID anzugeben, auch ein einzelner InChIKey kann nur falsch (oder zumindest unvollständig) sein.

CID 456190 ist immerhin verknüpft mit CAS 11056-06-7, im Gegensatz zu CID 73355844. Sinnvoller wäre also gewesen, den InChIKey anzupassen und nicht die CID zu ändern.--Mabschaaf (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Hi Mabschaaf, das versteh ich und Sie haben recht. Ich hab aber nicht den PubChem-CID ändert, aber nur zurückgesetzt. Sorry, my German is not good enough to reply completely in German. CAS numbers are not linked with PubChem numbers as strongly as they are with InChIKeys. PubChem has one identifier for on InChIKey: they must match. Clearly this needs to be cleaned up. But changing the PubChem CID without correcting the InChIKey too, is not the right way to do it. If you believe the InChIKey is wrong, please change that one too. I can check SciFinder tomorrow what the proper structure linked to the CAS number is. --Egon Willighagen (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh, I also note Bleomycin (de:Bleomycin) and Bleomycine (de:Bleomycine) in the German Wikipedia... --Egon Willighagen (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • OK, it's a total mess. There is the compound class (bleomycines), the drug (bleomycin) which is a mixture (see Mabschaaf's comment), and the specific A1, A2, etc compounds. I will clean it up. --Egon Willighagen (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

choline alfoscerate (Q28529699)Edit

Hi Egon. Could you please check whether or not choline alfoscerate (Q28529699) (created by you) is a duplicate of Alpha-GPC (Q2706622)? --Leyo 01:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Leyo: OK, it's on my radar. The have different InChIKey's and it's the stereochemistry in which they differ. I'll try to clean it up later (checking all linked identifiers. --Egon Willighagen (talk) 08:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I am trying to resolve the issues listed there. --Leyo 12:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
@Leyo:, solved. See also https://tools.wmflabs.org/scholia/chemical-class/Q2706622 --Egon Willighagen (talk) 11:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. --Leyo 13:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Please support the Sustainability Initiative!Edit

 
Please support the Sustainability Initiative!

Hello Egon Willighagen, I saw that you are one of the authors of the Greta Thunberg (Q56434717) item. Because I am looking for ways to reduce the environmental impact of Wikipedia itself, I wanted to ask you to check out the Sustainability Initiative and to add your name to the list of supporters so that I can show that many community members are behind this effort. Thanks! --Gnom (talk)

@Gnom:, thanks, done! I didn't know about this. Umm, can I also point you in return to https://docs.google.com/document/d/14GycQnHwjIQBQrtt6pyN-ZnRlX1n8chAtV72f0dLauU/edit# then? This Feedback to Plan S is about to future of scholarly communication. Please have a look. It is my strong belief that we can do a lot by making our scholarly journals better, to better support open science, which at least would reduce the amount of (energy consuming) redundant research. We have two days left to get this Feedback co-signed by as many people as possible, before I need to submit it to cOAlition S. --Egon Willighagen (talk) 11:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Your modification:Edit

Hello Egon Willighagen,

Why did you delete single value constraint (Q19474404) from MassBank Accession ID (P6689) ? --Eihel (talk) 15:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Eihel:Because each compound can have one or more Massbank entries. Did I remove the wrong one?? --Egon Willighagen (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Do you have an example? A component has a spectrometry with a single graph. In the caffeine example, it is only caffeine (no milk has been added  ). If you think of ions, another Item must be in WD (or create one). If you think of different acetate, you can only add the strict compound with a single WD Item. etc. Attention, it is only the entries Massbank, not entries MONA or other: access from the URL and the RegEx given in the Property. Do not confuse with distinct values constraint (Q21502410)? Has anyone in Norman made several specetrometrics on a single substance? Several labs, yes, but only one Massbank ID must be available having the form of the RegEx given in MassBank Accession ID (P6689). If multiple MassBank IDs exist for a single substance, one of the two must be out of date. --Eihel (talk) 16:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
The Massbank Access ID is not an identifier for the chemical, but for the record in the database. There can be multiple spectra in Massbank for caffeine, and there are. See for example https://massbank.eu/MassBank/Result.jsp?compound=caffeine&op1=and&mz=&tol=0.3&op2=and&formula=&type=quick&searchType=keyword&sortKey=not&sortAction=1&pageNo=1&exec=&inst_grp=ESI&inst=CE-ESI-TOF&inst=ESI-ITFT&inst=ESI-ITTOF&inst=ESI-QTOF&inst=ESI-TOF&inst=LC-ESI-IT&inst=LC-ESI-ITFT&inst=LC-ESI-ITTOF&inst=LC-ESI-Q&inst=LC-ESI-QFT&inst=LC-ESI-QIT&inst=LC-ESI-QQ&inst=LC-ESI-QTOF&inst=LC-ESI-TOF&ms=all&ms=MS&ms=MS2&ms=MS3&ms=MS4&ion=0 I read the definitions of the two contraints again, and I think I got them right. So, each Massbank Accession ID can have only one compound, but each compound can have more than one accession ID. --Egon Willighagen (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
You are right, sorry for the inconvenience   --Eihel (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
No problem at all! Peer review in action :) --Egon Willighagen (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights SurveyEdit

RMaung (WMF) 17:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights SurveyEdit

RMaung (WMF) 19:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Duplicate PubChem IDsEdit

I noticed that you created many chemical compound items on Sept 18 that have the PubChem ID listed twice (https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Database_reports/Constraint_violations/P662&diff=1020077575&oldid=1009421759). Is there an easy way of removing the duplicates in an automated way, or do they need to be fixed manually? Regards, Edgar181 (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh, carp. Sorry! I am not aware of an easy way. But I'll fix it. Thanks for the notice! --Egon Willighagen (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
@Edgar181: okay I think I got them all fixed now. Thanks again for point out the issue. --Egon Willighagen (talk) 09:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
That was quick. Thanks. Edgar181 (talk) 11:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Q70000000Edit

Item 70 million is yours! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:00, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I know ;) --Egon Willighagen (talk) 12:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

your found in taxon statements from ReconEdit

Hi Egon, Found in taxon should have as value the set of all taxa where this is true, not one unimportant example. Otherwise I go through all substances in Mycobacterium tuberculosis and create statements too, see? I think the stmts are really bad, and you should remove them. --SCIdude (talk) 06:55, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi @SCIdude:, I understand your point very well, and generally don't disagree, but I tend to disagree on the specific example: We want statements backed by literature and/or databases. It is not the task of Wikidata to infer knowledge and the resource I used did not make any claim beyond that specific species. Of course, if we find resources that some metabolite (water, phosphate, ions) are found in whole taxa, and that statement can be added at a higher level, and only then can statements for lower taxa be remove, IMHO. At this moment there are very few scholarly resources with machine-readable data that link metabolites with taxa. I love to continue talking. --Egon Willighagen (talk) 08:05, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
"not the task of Wikidata to infer knowledge" I disagree because WD allows such inference as long as it's documented and reproducible. That's why WD has based on heuristic (P887), and you can infer e.g. the gender of Peter Ustinov from the given name if you give based on heuristic (P887)-->deduced from given name (Q69652498) as reference. Maybe I should not have said "remove the statements" but better replace by improved statements, and you can do it. You can infer metabolites if you have enzymes that take them as substrate, and get the taxonomic range of the ortholog group of that enzyme. This method in general should get an item, and then you can use it with P887. I know you don't have the time, so I won't waste it further. --SCIdude (talk) 09:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Egon Willighagen".