User talk:MechQuester/Archive 1

Latest comment: 6 years ago by Succu in topic 没用的。
Logo of Wikidata

Welcome to Wikidata, MechQuester!

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:

  • Introduction – An introduction to the project.
  • Wikidata tours – Interactive tutorials to show you how Wikidata works.
  • Community portal – The portal for community members.
  • User options – including the 'Babel' extension, to set your language preferences.
  • Contents – The main help page for editing and using the site.
  • Project chat – Discussions about the project.
  • Tools – A collection of user-developed tools to allow for easier completion of some tasks.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask on Project chat. 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! Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Warning edit

  Please refrain from removing valid links from items, as you did to Q714958. Your edits do not appear to be constructive, and have been reverted. If you would like to test out editing, please use the Wikidata Sandbox. Thank you. --ValterVB (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi what are you talking about? That person is the sock puppet and long term abuser. MechQuester (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

This page exist and is the same person in Peter Nguyen Van Hung (Q714958) so you can't delete the sitelink --ValterVB (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
en:Peter Nguyen Van Hung is the main page with a larger edit history. MechQuester (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
Why you don't ask to merge the 2 pages? --ValterVB (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
Q25692990 Temporary solution. --ValterVB (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'll be back later.

ip blocked and add page to my Watchlist. --ValterVB (talk) 18:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #219 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #220 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #221 edit

This Month in GLAM: July 2016 edit

 




Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Wikidata weekly summary #222 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #223 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #224 edit

Creating Wikidata items after Petscan edit

Hi MechQuester, it would make sense to check if a Wikidata item is already existing before creating a duplicate one. See also the talk Creating duplicates unnecessarily on User_talk:GZWDer. --Florentyna (talk) 07:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #225 edit

This Month in GLAM: August 2016 edit

 




Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Wikidata weekly summary #226 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #227 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #228 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #229 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #230 edit

This Month in GLAM: September 2016 edit

 




Headlines



Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Wikidata weekly summary #231 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #232 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #233 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #234 edit

This Month in GLAM: October 2016 edit

 




Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Wikidata weekly summary #235 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #236 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #237 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #238 edit

Wikimedia list article edit

Hello MechQuester, I see you've created a lot of items recently. For example: list of Punjabi films of 2016 (Q27964528) and list of Punjabi films of 2017 (Q27964530). Two problems, the first – instance of (P31)film (Q11424) is incorrect. They should have instance of (P31)Wikimedia list article (Q13406463). The second problem, see Help:Label – a "list" isn't a proper noun and therefore should be written in lower case, i.e. "list of..." and not "List of". Can you please take extra care when using automated tools to create items in the future? I have noticed further mistakes too, such as Lester Nygaard (Q27965072), Lichter - Frankfurt International Film Festival (Q27965071) and AVN Award Female Foreign Performer of the Year (Q27965066). Please sort this out. Jared Preston (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Male versus female edit

We're finding a number of your petscan additions of biographies as items are being added as gender=male when the gender is female. Examples are

I wonder if you could, err, do better? I don't know what your petscan query is, but it's clearly finding women which you're then encoding as men :( --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Template:Ux, I saw. I had set it to catch non-entries... Well, I was careless and just clicked process command. oh well. I'll be careful Thanks for the headsup MechQuester (talk) 15:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
Yesterday there was a worldwide BBC editathon on women's biographies. You've managed to enter about half of them as "male" on Wikidata. Can you revert what you entered and just leave "human". It's taken me all day to correct about 20 of them manually.--Ipigott (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)Reply


oh.... yes. I will later today. MechQuester (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
I think by now Ipigott and I have changed them all to Female. I went through your edits from 8 & 7 December and have changed all in the runs you did then. I'm not seeing anything else in your edit history. I think we're clear. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

what was the point of asking me when you did it anyways?MechQuester (talk) 22:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

This Month in GLAM: November 2016 edit

 




Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

wrong edits edit

Hey. You did some wrong edits with PetScan. 1991 NCAA Division I Outdoor Track and Field Championships (Q27989095) is not a human and the country is not the American football team. There are many more of these edits. Please fix it. --Pasleim (talk) 10:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'll work on it. Thanks. MechQuester (talk) 14:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #239 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #240 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #241 edit

FYI merging Arizona census places edit

To let you know that the batch of Arizonan census-designated places seem to be duplicates of existing entries. I am stepping through hrwiki duplicates at the moment, though you may wish to check the rest in a day or two to see if there are others that need merging.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Template:Ping:Billinghurst, ah thanks for telling me. I was not aware that there were duplicates. Admittadly, Im not totally surprised as well. Mind if I ask, is there a "detector" of sorts or something that reveals duplicates? MechQuester (talk) 02:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
Didn't get that ping! Just found another from dupe a recent run that was created, which I have merged Q28134536 -> Q1341628.

With regard to duplicates there are a number of things looking at such. There is the unpretty project at User:Pasleim/projectmerge and there is something like Duplicity toollabs:wikidata-todo/duplicity.php which can also work with supplied lists. It is useful for new additions.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #242 edit

Descriptions edit

I've noticed you've recently added quite a few descriptions starting with a capital letter (e.g. Special:Diff/424582769) which shouldn't start with a capital letter according to Help:Description. If you haven't seen that page before, please do read it (and if you have, perhaps it would be a good idea to refresh your memory :)). - Nikki (talk) 13:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Understood. MechQuester (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #242 edit

This Month in GLAM: December 2016 edit

 




Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

sDrewth is the talking me ... edit

... m:User:Billinghurst#sDrewth. For what and how, that is a long story relating to me and a long history in IRC (and prior to WMF), that involves my country of origin, my accent, colloquialism, +++. All hilarious ... (umm) ... comedic ... (would you believe) mildly amusing ... punny. Anyway, as said, it is the "talking to me component", my insecure network username, and part of the name of my bot. If you ever get to IRC, that is the name that you will usually see me hiding behind. I hope that somewhat demystifies the oblique.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Ah that clears it up. Thank you. MechQuester (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Species need better matching before creation edit

I am seeing numbers of new duplicates from the past day for species that are clear matches, eg. Chrysoblephus puniceus (Q28233951) -> Chrysoblephus puniceus (Q1878104). Is there a chance to run some better checking processes to look for duplicates prior to creating? Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm I dont' beleive Petscan has the ability to detect possible duplicates or pre-existing entires of other wiki entries. I'll take a look around some of the policies/tools to see if that is possible. If there isn't, then Petscan should updated as such. MechQuester (talk) 15:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
I know Petscan can generate a list of unlinked that can be fed to duplicity (both MM's tools) for matching, so maybe it is better to go through that process rather than the blunt force approach where we have genus and species.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
It might be a bug. I think it generally detects these. Did you click "select all" instead of doing the unselected ones manually?
--- Jura 07:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
hi there, ugh I don't think Petscan detects that. I just clicked "select all". Is there anything I should know about that? Does Petscan detect dups? If not, then thats a big flaw in the software. MechQuester (talk) 07:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
It does. Instead of clicking "select all", just use the link "check Wikidata" for lines that aren't selected.
--- Jura 07:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Makes things easier. Thank you so much. MechQuester (talk) 07:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
The bad news is that we now have to merge duplicates you may have created.
--- Jura 07:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
How many items? MechQuester (talk) 07:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Each time an item wasn't selected by default and you clicked "select all" to get it selected, potentially this created a duplicate. You might know better how many that is.
--- Jura 08:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
I'll go through some of my additions tonight. MechQuester (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey edit

Wikidata weekly summary #243 edit

Thanks edit

Thanks for your advice on the Bot Request page, although I see you've withdrawn your message afterwards. I'm getting a bit lost indeed, because people are keeping repeating a discussion that was closed for me long ago, but others are popping it up whenever it seems to be convenient for them. Last year the complaint was that I didn't show enough responsibility for my bot-actions, in the end that was more a misunderstanding in communication. We cleaned up as much as we could by then, but there is also a time to move on. The issue is that this old issue is coming back, again, and I had that on IRC already a few times as well. For me it is very very frustrating to keep this old discussion again, every time with people that have not seen the old discussions. I checked for Vogone, he did make like 50 edits on Wikidata last year, but he's also making high impact decisions on the project. I lost my bot-bit, my bot account is blocked, and with the current discussion I have no idea what needs to be done to myself back up again. People too easily say "something went wrong, so just revert it". If it was that easy and done in an hour of time, it would have been done. It is not that simple, and it took me 3 months last year that my bot was inactive and we (tried to) clean up. Not all edits where wrong, some edits where extended or repaired afterwards, some where reverted, and there is no simple query that will clean up the mess. If there was, we would have gone down that road. Unfortunately, I again now ran into users that tell me "please clean up your shit, until i do not see it anymore". I would love a life that would be just that simple. Edoderoo (talk) 11:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

There will always be people who will give shit and talk later. Bot owners, it woudl seem, are helped to a much higher standard than actual edits due to potential to go wrong. It happens. Please, dont' take it too personally. You still have sysop powers. :). I was looking at some of the edits, I didn't mind much of the edits, although the accuracy could be a little better. Mind if I suggest to take the bot edits a bit slow? It could help. Use your main account to edit. It could help.

Also, regarding Vogone, It is kind of sad he still is making high-impact decisions. His total edit count is 25,000, which is spread out across all the wikis. Sigh, I wish he paid a little more attention here.

I try to not let things get the best of me. Its nto really healthy to listen to those who are crazy about perfection. MechQuester (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

taxon (Q16521) with country (P17) edit

Please mention that a country (P17) may not refer to a taxon (Q16521)! --Bigbossfarin (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

True that, I think it was not the country that was supposed to be edited, but the P31??? Plants/animals do usually not have any country mentioned. Edoderoo (talk) 07:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)Reply


Wikidata weekly summary #244 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #245 edit

"imported from" should only be a reference, not a qualifier edit

Hello. On several items, you added "imported from French Wikipedia" as both a qualifier and a reference. For example, see "located in time zone" for Alos (Q7190). But "imported from" should only be used in the reference. Can you remove it as a qualifier? Jefft0 (talk) 09:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Creation of new chemical compound items edit

Hi MechQuester, I noticed that you created, based on English Wikipedia pages which lack a corresponding Wikidata item, new Wikidata items. But for many of these, you created a duplicate, empty Wikidata item for a compound where a richly populated Wikidata item already exists. Example: new item you created olmutinib (Q28209691), existing item: olmutinib (Q27088175). It is very hard to find these, so could you please avoid creating these duplicates and before creating a new item based on a Wikipedia article, check if the item already exists? Btw: the Wikipedia page was also created after the Wikidata item!

In general, it is not very useful to create empty Wikidata items, because they are very hard to query and therefore to find. It would be really helpful if there was at least one unique identifier statement on those new items, e.g. Pubchem CID, CAS #, FDA UNII. Thanks! Sebotic (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Sebotic:, got it. 05:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #246 edit

This Month in GLAM: January 2017 edit

 




Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Wikidata weekly summary #247 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #248 edit

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey edit

(Sorry to write in Engilsh)

Wikidata weekly summary #249 edit

Item to be delete edit

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 --ValterVB (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #250 edit

This Month in GLAM: February 2017 edit

 




Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Wikidata weekly summary #251 edit

Weekly Summary #252 edit

beetle edit

Hi MechQuester,

I noticed that your bot created a new species of beetle that does not exist in the outside world, and otherwise has tracked a trail of destruction (also [1], [2], [3], etc) of unknown proportions. Could you please undo these edits? - Brya (talk) 05:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Brya, Yes I will fix it. Thank you for telling me. I was gonna go back and fix them all. Thank you. MechQuester (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Wait a minute. In the 1,2, and 3, you provided, I think they are correct. I just made them more accurate though. I don't exactly see how that is a problem though. Can you explain? MechQuester (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
The purpose of a description is disambiguation, not accuracy preciseness. The "species of insect" should be understood by just about all. Now, beetles are a really big and well-known group, so in itself it would not hurt to use "species of beetle". However, that leaves the rest of the insects, which would then all have to become either "species of non-beetle insect" (which would be pretty weird) or have to be broken down in some way into groups. This quickly becomes a nightmare, with groups that are only known to those with an interest in insects. This last would defeat the purpose of the description, which is disambiguation, and should answer the basic question: "is this a popsong, an avant garde dish, or what? - Brya (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
No. It is better the way it is. MechQuester (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
In that case please revert your edits, and then make them manually. A bot is not intended to make controversial edits. - Brya (talk) 04:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Reply


  1. The updated descriptions are more specific. "Species of insect" is very vague when it comes to read the data. That makes the info very precise.
  2. The description makes it much easier to know the topic. It in fact saves the reader from having to scroll down to the look for more information and specifics to what is "generally" known. That reader right there and then knows its a beetle without putting the effort.
  3. There is no need for others to be labelled "species of (other) insects" because that is stupid and useless.
  4. There is no need for it to be vague as possible. If you had to describe it, you wouldn't say "It is an insect" to someone. Instead, you would say "It is a beetle" instead.
  5. Finally, It shows up on articles when viewed on mobile. undereath the article title, the Wikidata description shows up and gives info in a nutshell. Accuracy in saying it is a "beetle" would make loads of clarity to the reader since most beetle articles are stubs saying they are part of their respective tribe, family or tribe.


Those are my arguments in changing them. If you cannot be persuaded that a more accurate description is appropriate for more of "consistency", then help me changing them to more specific terms.


        "More specific" is not any kind of argument Heteronyx queenlandicus is a "species of insect". It is indeed more specific to describe it as "species of beetle", but it is even more specific to describe it as "species of scarab beetle", and even more specific to describe it as "species of the subfamily Melolonthinae", and even more specific to describe it as "species of the genus Heteronyx", and even more specific to describe it as "Heteronyx queenlandicus". As a "description" becomes more specific it loses its value for purposes of disambiguation.
        If you had to describe it, which is irrelevant here, I may very well say "It is an insect" to someone. It depends very much on who I would say it to. Many people would prefer "It is a bug". And there are some who would regard "It is a beetle" as an insult.
        As to mobiles, there are plenty of descriptions that will come across as near nonsensical to mobile users. That is not an argument either; they are working on alternatives to using the description. In fact, "species of insect" will tell the mobile user, "Oh, it is one of those stubs, never mind". - Brya (talk) 05:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Im not changing them back. MechQuester (talk) 02:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
I see yo have reverted to creating non-existent "species of beetle". Why this violation of policies? - Brya (talk) 04:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Did you try to cite a policy? MechQuester (talk) 04:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

OK, let's put it more simply: why this vandalism? - Brya (talk) 04:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

How would you describe what I have done as vandalism? MechQuester (talk) 04:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

How else? With [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] these edits, you blanked the description field, removing a perfectly adequate description. With [10], [11], [12] these edits, you put in sitelinks to non-existing pages. With [13], [14], [15], [16], [17] these edits, you created otherwise non-existing species of beetle. - Brya (talk) 10:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
ugh, the first few sets of information are highly inappropriate as a description. If there is another place to place them, the description is not the place. That is vandalism. As for the others, yes its my fault. MechQuester (talk) 13:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
What is "highly inappropriate" about them? How else would you describe a name that may not be used? - Brya (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
I would leave it empty. MechQuester (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
That is not very informative. How can the reader tell that this is a name that may not be used? - Brya (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
The reader can determine it from the article. An empty description does not help, but it does not hurt the article as well. MechQuester (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Often enough that proves to be not the case. Anyway, adding disambiguating descriptions has a high priority across the project. - Brya (talk) 16:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
ugh, according to what? policy? personal preference? MechQuester (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Well, ask anybody; it is very basic. The most basic Wikidata:Tours starts with adding labels and descriptions. - Brya (talk) 17:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #253 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #254 edit

Chhetri at Wikidata vandalised edit

Unjustified definitions, aliases and labels set at Chhetri(Q1071516) by User:Damien2016. Please check and safeguard it. Airkeeper (talk) 02:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #255 edit

This Month in GLAM: March 2017 edit

 




Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

bad batch edit

Please correct the edits where you mixed instance of (P31) and taxon rank (P105) up, e.g. on Coniatus elegans (Q29032370). --Pasleim (talk) 10:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

I fixed the error for several genera allready. --Succu (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Same. MechQuester (talk) 13:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
You missed a lot of cases, e.g. Cleopus elegans (Q29032363). --Succu (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
... ok. MechQuester (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #256 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #257 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #258 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #259 edit

This Month in GLAM: April 2017 edit

 




Headlines
  • Argentina report: End of contest, new heritaged donated and digitizing workshop
  • Basque Country report: Students working on literature with new Wikipedian in Residence
  • Belgium report: Brussels writing weeks; Dutch Language Union workshop; Civic Lab Brussels start; Edit-a-thon Leuven
  • Brazil report: Wikimedia Conference, gender and International collaboration
  • Germany report: You may only harvest after putting a grain
  • Ghana report: GLAM Ghana duly launched
  • Italy report: Open Data for Cultural Heritage
  • Macedonia report: 12 Peaks hiking challenge
  • Netherlands report: The Netherlands and the World: Photo hunt Chinsurah; Photohunt public library Tilburg; Wikipedian in Residence for UNESCO's Memory of the World programme in the Netherlands; Picture books from Koninklijke Bibliotheek
  • Spain report: Management and dissemination of cultural heritage
  • Sweden report: GLAM-EduWiki collaboration awarded Pedagogy Award of the year at Swedish museums; Connected Open Heritage
  • UK report: Bio-Medical History Residences
  • USA report: New connections at the Library of Congress and Smithsonian
  • Wikipedia Library report: Books & Bytes
  • Wikidata report: Federation and new datatypes
  • WMF GLAM report: DPLAFest and Beyond
  • Calendar: May's GLAM events
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Wikidata weekly summary #260 edit

Someday edit

MechQuester (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #262 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #263 edit

This Month in GLAM: May 2017 edit

 




Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Wikidata weekly summary #264 edit

Q edit

Hello, if I can ask that how you can remove wrong edits as you do here by petscan or ...? Thanks --Alaa :)..! 13:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hey Alaa! Nice to meet you. Im not sure if Petscan or Quickstatements are able to remove. I used the "mass rollback" function. I installed a script found in my userspace here. Then i went to his contributions and went to the affected ones and press "

Only show edits that are latest revisions

". Look up to the search bar and look to the right. There should be a downward arrow and press "smart Rollback". Then you can rollback in masse. Becareful though. The API-limit for editing will stop you when you do 500 at once so you will have to wait a few seconds (at least 20) before you can do that again. Do them in 100 times at one time and wait 5 seconds. CHeers. MechQuester (talk) 16:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
Oh, really thanks for this explanation  , I'll use it carefully. Thanks again --Alaa :)..! 17:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Items without statements edit

Hi MechQuester.

It seems you filled up Wikidata:Database reports/without claims by site/enwiki. It would be helpful to add at least a statement with instance of (P31) to new items.
--- Jura 18:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

I"ll go work on it soon

re: Finish edit

thank you very much for your help :) the notifications weren't a problem because I disabled it yesterday --Ibrahim.ID (talk) 05:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #265 edit

没用的。 edit

Could you please explain this edit of yours. Thanks in advance. --Succu (talk) 21:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

我可以啊。 那就回你的套现的选择。真的闹不清为什么你兔软用德语。。让你明白你的想法。MechQuester (talk) 01:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
Danke für die "nette" Erläuterung. --Succu (talk) 05:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
please make sure you don't fall back on German. I understand that German is your first language so its easy. Its fine if it is decent or rough. Thank you. MechQuester (talk) 12:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
At least I learnt an english phase new to me: „to issue a gag(ging) order on someone”. --Succu (talk) 13:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
  1. This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
  2. Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.
Return to the user page of "MechQuester/Archive 1".