User talk:GZWDer/2016

Active discussions

WMF projects - translation of labels and descriptionsEdit

Dear GZWDer; I have seen you contributing at Wikimedia Incubator (Q846672) and at other pages related to WMF projects. I want to let you know that the number of projects listed at Wikidata:Database reports/WMF projects has increased to more then 385; there are pages from Wikibook project pages to Wikiversity and Wiktionary project pages,
You may be interested in adding labels and descriptions in other languages, follow the discussion at property talk:P218#whats next and comment there. Best regards Gangleri also aka I18n (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

New propertiesEdit

When you create a new property, it would be nice to inform or notify the one who proposed it and the user who commented it. Or the property will be orphan for a long time. -Fralambert (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Property creationEdit

The Latvia-related properties you created here were only proposed on 13 Jan - 4 days ago. Any reason you didn't wait the full 7 days? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Another comment on property creation: please do not copy the proposal discussion to the talk page: an hyperlink to the proposal discussion is rather systematically being created as soon as the property proposal gets archived (7 days or so after creation, I believe), via property "proposed by" of {{Property documentation}}, like this. As it stands, all these copies of discussions will need to be deleted manually in the next few days. Thanks -- LaddΩ chat ;) 00:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


After your account retired for a little more than 100 days you created several hundreds items without a single statement for wikispecies. A lot of them are unnecessary and have to be merged. Please fix this. --Succu (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

„Thank you“ for wasting my time. I fixed around 250 issues I was aware of. --Succu (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem still is not resolved. A bot run that requires months of manual edits to clear it up is a very poor idea. - Brya (talk)!


Hi! I there a reason why you changed the archive system on a few pages here? I'd recommend suggesting a change before actually implementing it, I have reverted it for now. Kind regards, --Vogone (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

This makes resolved sections (many of which are simple merge requests) be archived quicker. See also Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2014/01#What is going wrong?--GZWDer (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Isn't there some template to make Template:Resolved work with it? The message you used on WD:BN seemed a bit clumsy to me. Besides, I don't think we need quick archiving on BN, for other request pages it might be different, though. Kind regards, --Vogone (talk) 19:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
@Vogone: Firstly, SpBot only reconizes {{Section resolved}}. In addition, {{Resolved}} may mean only a part of the problem is resolved.--GZWDer (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


Hi GZWDer,

Now that "external identifier" is available as a property datatype, would you create a sandbox and a sample property for these (as Sandbox-String (P370) and P1858 (P1858)).
--- Jura 07:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. It seems it's available, but not quite ready. I could set "novalue" and "somevalue", but not a custom value (Q15397819). I suppose it will work later.
--- Jura 07:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


Hi. These days you've created a lo-o-ot of items for templates, categories and modules from major Wikipedias. Do you have in plans to add some statements to these items (Q11266439, Q4167836, etc.) or ...? --XXN, 20:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC) P.S. I want to let you know that I merged some items of homonymous French-English templates.






Would you have look at the question at Wikidata:Translators'_noticeboard#Source_language.

Thanks for your attention.






Wikidata翻译协调员‎, 17:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

翻译通知:Wikidata:Data donationEdit


您收到此通知,是因为您作为一名中文的翻译者在Wikidata注册了。页面Wikidata:Data donation已提供翻译。您可在此翻译:





Wikidata翻译协调员‎, 16:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

2016 British Grand PrixEdit

Hello. Why you made 2016 British Grand Prix under Q25303497 if it already exists? It's confusing. It happens next year. Eurohunter (talk) 08:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I know I can merge but it's unecessary to doing it every time when new Grand Prix coming. Just do it correctly how it should be. Eurohunter (talk) 08:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

GZWDer (flood)Edit

You seem to be mass-creating items on high-speed, can I ask you to slow it down? Please read the etiquette, especially "requests in series rather than in parallel". This is affecting the performance of the query service. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 07:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be editing at a rate of 300-400 edits per minute. This has now caught the attention of Wikimedia sysops (due to the large amount of errors it generates internally). I request you to please edit at 10 times slower rate. --JCrespo (WMF) (talk) 14:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
@JCrespo (WMF): he responded on my talk page. Apparently the tool he is using should be modified, see here. You should contact Magnus Manske for that. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 14:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Stop other process (currently two) and leaving only one. Note one process still consists of five threads.--GZWDer (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
@Sjoerddebruin: Mangnus is not responsible for how others use his tools. He is editing under his account. 5 threads is still too fast. Obviously the limits are flexible, but 1 edit/second, on a single thread would be my personal recommendation. I've requested the blockage of the bot's account to prevent further problems. The issue is on for more than a day now, time enough to stop/finish running processes. --JCrespo (WMF) (talk) 15:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
@JCrespo (WMF): However PetScan will be run in 5 threads if you are using a bot account, and you can not change it without changing PetScan's source code. Even if you run PetScan in one process, ~60 edits will still be made in one minute.--GZWDer (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
60 edits per minute/1 thread seems reasonable enough to me. If it is a scripting language maybe you can just change an option or edit the source code to change a 5 with a 1? --JCrespo (WMF) (talk)
@JCrespo (WMF): You may only contact @Magnus Manske: to change PetScan's source code.--GZWDer (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Mass editing as a normal user account is limited already, but (excessively) slow. So under a bot account, you can 5 threads in parallel. This is not an accident, but intentional, and assumes that people who manage to get a bot account use it sensibly. --Magnus Manske (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
From the last discussion in the forum, it seems that 1000 edits per minute should be ok for Wikidata.
--- Jura 16:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
@Jura1: Which discussion/forum? --JCrespo (WMF) (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Wikidata:Project chat. I think the exception was even hardcoded in the site configuration.
--- Jura 16:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
@JCrespo (WMF): (edit conflict) However only 300-400 edits per minute already disrupts wikidata server. This itself probably needs to be fixed or improved. Compare [1].
FYI: I have started another process (now two processes). Any issue should be reported here.--GZWDer (talk) 16:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Please note that that block was did in 2013, a time where the total amount of edits on Wikidata per minute was reasonably lower. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
There is probably some bug GZWDer uncovered. Obviously, instead of dealing with the symptoms, people paid to fix these should start investigating. Imagine if we stop creating items for new pages, Wikidata growth will be capped.
--- Jura 16:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
There is no problem with Wikidata having 1000 or 20000 edits per second, overal. There is a problem with every user doing 300 edits per second in parallel, which is that people complain about their own edits being slow (it affects other users)- and I am the one that receives such complains and have to attend them. I think it is reasonable to ask for a single user to moderate its edit speed, if it is for the benefit of other users. If everyone did as many edits as he/she wanted, we would have a non-working wiki, which is the opposite of what we all want here. @Jura1: Please link me to the exact place where someone agreed to allow 1000 edits per minute to every user on this wiki, or where such a limit is hardcoded. I will link you to the mediawiki policy by which all wiki site abide, which says:
There is no hard and fast limit on read requests, but we ask that you be considerate and try not to take a site down. Most sysadmins reserve the right to unceremoniously block you if you do endanger the stability of their site.
If you make your requests in series rather than in parallel (i.e. wait for the one request to finish before sending a new request, such that you're never making more than one request at the same time), then you should definitely be fine.
@GZWDer: Magnus' recommendation is: "Just run it as a normal user and not a bot user!" I highly recommend you to follow that piece of advice. --JCrespo (WMF) (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
N.B. This only applies to this very specific job, which is generating lots of errors on wikidata's log (maybe other kind of jobs are ok to do faster). If Magnus or GZWDer is right, I do not know. I am only here notifying the issue and asking for it to be slowed down somehow. JCrespo (WMF) (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
@jura1: It turns out that the user was executing commands on 7 * 5 = 35 parallel threads, which is worse than the "speed" of editing, as it conficts with itself and with other people's edits. He promised to keep them on "1 tab" (1-5 threads) in the future. End of the issue. --JCrespo (WMF) (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Per Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2016/04#RateLimit it should be 10/s.
--- Jura 05:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

That is a conversation of by someone that doesn't maintain the servers. As per Wikidata:Bots#Bot_accounts:

Bots should respect maxlag and should follow the API etiquette guidelines.

Again, this is not an administrative, policy or technical change, I wouldn't mind someone doing 100 edits/s if it didn't cause problems. This specific user is causing problems for their particular edit pattern (and only him). ---JCrespo (WMF) (talk) 08:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
@JCrespo (WMF):for several days I only use one process. Are there any problems? If there're no problem, is only one process acceptable or I can use two processes (10 threads)?--GZWDer (talk) 08:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
It is causing problems right now. 1/3 of all database errors of all 900 wikis (despite multitude of small open ongoing issues) are caused by your bot. I am going to ask for the blockage of your bot indefinitely. --JCrespo (WMF) (talk) 08:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
@JCrespo (WMF): Now I'm using only one process, which can not be reduced. We should @Magnus Manske: to remove the multi-thread edit function. (The bot is paused temporary.)--GZWDer (talk) 08:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
All right, made a tracker, will get on it this week. I'm still surprised by this; I have done a lot of multi-threaded edits to Wikidata over the years, and never had any issues reported (except flooding Recent Changes, which lead to editing through bot accounts). --Magnus Manske (talk) 09:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Maybe creating items has a huger impact than just edits? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 09:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

/doc subpage itemsEdit

As per WD:N, items containing links to "/doc, /sandbox, /testcases or /TemplateData" subpages are not notable here. See: User:Pasleim/Unsupported sitelinks – the vast majority of those redlinks were items created by your bot in the past week. Please stop this from happening again. Jared Preston (talk) 23:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Creating items with no properties at allEdit

I ran into items that you have created, but with no single property... I wonder what makes the sense of doing so. Here is my point: if every language would create blank items, we would miss the places where items could be linked to other wiki's, and a blank item therefor gives even less information then an item with a few properties, especially for languages that do not understand eachother (a blank Chinese item is for me senseless, a blank Dutch item leaves Chinese speakers clueless). Maybe I miss the point, but for me an item without items has even less value then no item at all. No item means no one took the the time to check if the lemma could be linked to other wiki's. In this point of view mass creating blank items is actually creating a problem, as it is hiding the work that still needs to be done. Edoderoo (talk) 09:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

For people interested in the answer: see my talk page. Some of the tools take advantage of blank items, so they end up on the list with items to merge. This is maybe not ideal, on the other hand, it's the best we have right now. Edoderoo (talk) 05:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be worth to try to identify some categories that can be used to add statements directly on creation, even if it means that there is some potential error involved. Getting items of Wikidata:Database reports/without claims by site is a long way.
--- Jura 12:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

You did not specify what went wrongEdit

Hoi, had you indicated what wen wrong, I would have remedied it myself.. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Random edit. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I have re-submitted a bot. Please advise if this was not done correctlyEdit

[Supplement P2046 (area) data for US municipalities with data from DBpedia]

Thanks. (talk)


Why Did you cancel my Hebrew transliteration? הנדב הנכון (talk) 17:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


Hello, your bot created many items connected with links to user pages on Greek Wikipedia (elwiki), eg. Q26014604. Could you make sure it doesn't happen again? Thanks, Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


Hi. You are reverting my updates on the wikidataba pages. All I do is adding descriptions in Arabic as I create the arabic version of the article and link it to other versions. If what I am doing is wrong please explain the reason. Thanks --Mervat Salman (talk) 11:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata:Properties for deletion#BBC News Democracy Live ID (P2173)Edit

fyi, as creator. Cabayi (talk) 10:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "GZWDer/2016".