Yash nagar

Welcome to Wikidata, Yash nagar!

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) 12:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Defining formula

You have added a large number of defining formula (P2534) statements from enwiki - some of them do not make much sense. I just removed the claim you made on muon (Q3151) where you inserted a formula for the muon lifetime (decay width) that is very definitely not the "defining formula" for the muon itself. I don't think all of your additions should be reverted as some of them do look useful and make sense but a lot of them are at least as nonsensical as the muon one. You seem to have just taken the first formula in the enwiki page and added it as a "defining formula". More care is required than that. ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I ran into your edit on grid search (Q3601002) [1]. I do not think the formula makes much sense. — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I have deleted it now. — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@fnielsen: My dataset consists of more than 15,000 mathematical formulae. I can't be sure about the correctness of all of them, but my evaluation says that around 75 percent are correct. I will try that I don't upload the wrong one's, but there might be some exceptions due to the high number.

Can't be sure -- please, don't add. I undoed more than 50% of your "additions" from my watchlist. -- Vlsergey (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Me too. I just saw two of your edits on items in my Watchlist:

1. Here you inserted a formula, that was already set
2. Here you just invented the formula

Please, stop it now. If you are unsure of what you are doing just don't add more work to us. --★ → Airon 90 18:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Vlsergey, Airon90: I know that my data is not correct. Thats the reason why I wanted to use Primary Source Tool to upload these formulae into Wikidata. Because in primary source tool, you can accept or reject a claim depending on its accuracy. However, when I did so, I got an error which I reported here. Nobody solved the issue and thus I used quickstatement to upload the formulae. Can you suggest me a solution?

Sure, there is a solution: don't mass add anything. -- VlSergey ^(трёп) 07:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Vlsergey, ArthurPSmith, Fnielsen: Is it possible to create a list of Yash nagar's latest edits made with QuickStatements in order to check its correctness and to rollback the uncorrect ones? --★ → Airon 90 15:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• IMHO, all edits shall be reverted and only corrects one manually restored. It is not correct to assume "hey, we have 75% correct data, that's good, let's bulk load more". 1 mistake per 10 edits means in average we will have no entity with all statements correct at all. -- Vlsergey (talk) 18:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

 Support I fully agree. There are enough obviously incorrect statements – the bot/import/whatever seems to have ignored closing </math> tags, so many formulas include article text or even <ref> tags – and that’s without the issue that “first formula in the article” is a very poor heuristic for “defining formula” (example: Contraposition being assigned the formula $A\to B$, which is the exact opposite of the correct formula). —Galaktos (talk) 09:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• I've managed to check all formulae in my watchlist (~100) and to revert/correct all of them. Yes, correctness ratio was about 50% but now the content became fuller. So I would object to mass revert of these edits. --Infovarius (talk) 12:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I see that there are many issues with the correctness of the data. I propose that the moderators can mass revert all the edits made by me in the last weeks (using Quickstatements). I will try to clean my data and see if it is good enough to be added into Wikidata.

Ok, but I hope formulae won't be removed that were changed after your addition. And there will be no edit war when someone revert removal because of formula correctness. --Infovarius (talk) 14:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Your edits, again.

Please, could you explain this edit? Why an items consists of a disambiguation item? --★ → Airon 90 18:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

can you please explain me the question once again. Isn't it the correct way of adding a formula for a property?

In addition, I have some identifier definition pair for approximately 20 Wikidata items. I would like to ask you which property should I use to add them as a statement? I saw one example here. Is this correct?