Heb je gezien dat Wikidata:Database reports/without claims by site/nlwiki best hard gaat? We zitten nu onder de 5000. Jaar geleden was nog rond de 10.000 en twee jaar geleden rond de 20.000. Het einde komt in zicht :-)
Return to the user page of "Sjoerddebruin".
Reply to "Wikidata:Database reports/without claims by site/nlwiki"
Reply to "Mayor information on city items"
Reply to "Null-edits"
Reply to "Oversight requests"
Reply to "Massive unexplained reverts"
Reply to "Sergio Goyri (Q2263688)"
Reply to "BBLD ID - vandalism"
Wikidata:Database reports/without claims by site/nlwiki
Mayor information on city items
I saw that you removed the claim that Femke Halsema is the mayor of Amsterdam Q727, with the reason that Q727 is the item about the city and the "burgemeester" is head of the municipality (Q9899). Has this reasoning been discussed and agreed on, or is this just your opinion? Because I don't see why that should exclude the information from the city item. The burgemeester is also mayor of the city.
Met vriendelijke groeten
We could also add the information to every neighbourhood, making it very hard to update the data. I don't remember a discussion, but it seems pretty clear to me.
I don't see any reason to add head of government (P6) to neighborhood items, but I do think it would be great to add it to major cities that have the municipality as a separate item, as is the case, for example, for Rotterdam (Q2680952) and Rotterdam (Q34370). Currently Amsterdam (Q727) is the only European capital that does not contain mayor information. Dat is toch zonde!
I would prefer *not* to add this information to multiple items. In your examples, they do have the same name. The mayor of Woerden, is also mayor of Harmelen, Kamerik, Kanis and Zegveld. And of the town of Woerden. Would you add them to all items? Or only to the one with the same name? What about the king? Add them to every municipality, because he is king of those too? Where do we stop? I agree with Sjoerd, that we should only add this info to the municipality.
My suggestion was to add the information to "major cities that have the municipality as a separate item". Not to add it to every village or settlement in that municipality.
Jij was ooit de eerste die mij er op wees dat mijn bot rare edits deed die geen effect hadden. Nu lijkt er iemand een oorzaak te hebben gevonden: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T220904
Hi Sjoerddebruin, are you monitoring the OTRS queue for wikidata-oversight? I've sent in a request a few days ago and still have heard back nothing.
I've responded by e-mail.
Massive unexplained reverts
Could you explain what you find unsuitable in the descriptions you are removing? If you are concerned about the inclusion of the ORCID ID, that was necessary to disambiguate them as there are many identical names in that group of items.
I’ve asked in the Telegram group and people agreed with me, I even think someone mentioned you there. These are not useful, they don’t help the reader or editor at all.
I disagree. It is far more useful than a blank description. I keep finding these while manually searching Wikidata and the lack of descriptions make it very frustrating.
I think it's important to discuss mass reverts before carying them out. That was already mentioned at Wikidata:Edit groups but I will add that to the tool's UI to avoid that problem in the future.
(By discussing I mean discussing them with the author and ideally on wiki)
I thought the tool worked the same as the smart rollback script which marks edits as bot edits, sorry.
Because the edits are carried out with the user's account, that's not possible (not all users have a bot flag), but I agree that it would be a useful thing to have. I guess that means I would need to use a dedicated account like QuickStatementsBot. If you think that it is better, it should not be too hard to implement. (Another issue with the current system is that the OAuth tokens can expire, so the undoing can stop unexpectedly, which I think happened in your case. That's why I resumed the undoing from my own account when I saw that)
Thanks Mahir 256. Sjoerddebruin, I spend a lot of time adding new items for en wikipedia articles on humans. To do so, it is necessary to search for items having the same name. Pretty much all such searches will pull up one or several ORCID person items, or CBDB items. Because these have no descriptions, it is necessary to waste time inspecting each of them to find out they are not the footballer/politician/whatever that you're searchig for. Adding descriptions including the ORCID ID or the CBDB id is clearly useful. Your assertion "These are not useful, they don’t help the reader or editor at all." is manifestly wrong. Please do not revert such edits.
Sergio Goyri (Q2263688)
Hi, I saw the semiprotection of the page, thank you. I'm an active user on es.wiki, but I don't have enough contributions here so I can't remove some bad words the recent vandalist user added, just before your contribution. These are: "Hombre ley. El Terco.". Can you remove those please? Thanks in advance.
There have been a lot of damaging edits, if I need to hide something where do we end? I don't think everything is covered by the oversight policy.
You're right. There are so many vandalism edits from today (the controversy is around a few comments this person did which caused repulsion in social network media). But definitely those summaries need to be hide because all of them contain bad words on smaller or greater measure.
BBLD ID - vandalism
The value that you removed is well sourced. The value that you added is not sourced and leads to a broken link.
If the CV is of concern, then fix it.
Your action resulted in broken links in various Wikipedias.
Falsely getting accused of vandalism is also not very nice. I'm trying to keep constraint violations as low as possible, this broken property doesn't help much.
Pagina's die niet gekoppeld zijn aan items
Kijk jij nog wel eens naar https://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Speciaal:OngekoppeldePaginas&limit=700&offset=0&namespace=0 ? Mijn bot was blijven hangen en heeft vandaag voor het eerst weer eens gelopen. Onderaan de lijst staan vooral veel pagina's die even een null edit nodig hebben.
Ik doe mijn best, we hebben nog 5800 items zonder statements dus het gaat de goede kant op.
Fijn om te horen. Zullen er wel een paar nieuwe bij zijn gekomen nu m'n bot weer heeft gelopen.