Open main menu

User talk:Multichill

About BotMultichillT/ULANEdit

Hello,
About this edit: I think that, when the ULAN database contains "Donato, called Donatello", the bot should not add the alias "called Donatello Donato" in Wikidata.
Regards --NicoScribe (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

"called" is an English common expression: it is not a given name or a surname or an alias.
There is the same problem with equivalent common expressions in other languages:
When an ULAN value contains one of these expressions, it should not be imported into Wikidata.
--NicoScribe (talk) 21:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

AliasesEdit

Hello. Your bot is recurrently adding wrong aliases to the page of Jean Petitot (Q556676) For the 100th time « Emails par le célèbre Petitot » is in no way an alias. It is an advertisement on work done by him ("Enamels by the famous Petitot"). Please stop that. Sapphorain (talk) 07:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

@Sapphorain: I don't recall you ever mentioning this to me, so not sure why you say for the 100th time.
ULAN considers this a valid alias. If you think that's incorrect, you might want to contact them. Multichill (talk) 08:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
No. This proves ULAN doesn't understand French, is not a reliable source, and thus should not invoked for French aliases. "The 100th time is of course a figure of style, but I have been reverting you on that matter a number of times for several months, since apparently you didn't notice. And I will do it again if necessary. Sapphorain (talk) 09:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, sure, good luck with that. Multichill (talk) 09:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Fine. Suit yourself. When bot trainers have no more capacity of analyzing the absurdity of a situation than their bots, we are getting into big trouble. Sapphorain (talk) 20:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
You come here with an attitude and act arrogant about the Getty Research Institute, that's generally not a very good approach to get me to put effort in something.
You did give me a good laugh with the "bot trainers" part. Thanks for that! I'm not really into Pokémon GO myself. Multichill (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
You will not be covering up your incompetence by invoking the Getty research institute, or by laughing. Your attitude is pathetic. A mistake must be corrected, it is as simple as that, and there is no arrogance in requiring correction, just common sense. Sapphorain (talk)
Wikidata:No personal attacks. Last and only warning.
You've overstayed your welcome here. Bye bye. Multichill (talk) 22:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

CézanneEdit

Hi, Could you explain why you did this? The lists are not identical. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Because it was a redundant list part of Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Top 100 painters. I redirected all of the redundant lists. Point is that people work on these painters, no point keeping duplicate lists. You can improve on Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Creator/Paul Cézanne. Multichill (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Q27950082 labelEdit

yeah, sorry about the sloppy scrapping, and pasting. this commons file also links to wrong wikidata item. File:Bosque de Fontainebleau - Théodore Rousseau.jpg. not Q27954715. cheers. Slowking4 (talk) 15:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok, fixed it on Commons. The structured data was already correct :-) Multichill (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

LooperzEdit

Please review this edit by User:Looperz, who, I believe, you have recently blocked, and see if further action is warranted.

The user added a start date without regard to using the correct calendar; the Gregorian calendar is obviously incorrect for an event in England in the 12th century. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jc3s5h: you should first contact the user in question. If that doesn't sort it out, an admin might be needed. Can you please bring this up on Looperz's talk page? Multichill (talk) 12:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


@Jc3s5h: Did you know, that I corrected about 14.000 entries of that consecrator (P1598) claims? Incorrect was btw. not the claim itself but "only" the chosen qualifer. And I did not set the role intentionally wrong. I wanted to help differentiating between principal consecrator (Q18442817) and principal co-consecrator (Q18442822). For that purpose I chose a automatically proposed but incorrect qualifier. That was probably because the majority was set wrong before I started using this qualifier. In a few hours the correct qualifier will have the majority among the qualifiers used for consecrator (P1598). And I am really looking forward to having fixed not only the wrong entries but even the auto-proposal. That will happen, as soon as the auto-proposal-feature will renew its cache because of the new numbers, I expect.
I am making errors. But I also find and fix a lot of them. e.g. many many cardinal (Q45722)s are tagged as bishop (Q29182) or Catholic bishop (Q611644) just because authors of polish Wikipedia pages thought, that every cardinal is a bishop, too. When I find this errors, I look up the cardinal at a reliable source and if necessary I correct that bishop-error. So please: correct my errors, talk to me about them, stop me making them. But activating an administrator immediately, just because you found one of my errors, is imho not necessary.

--Looperz (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Multichill".