Wikidata:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive/2020/12

This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion.

Persistent introduction of false dates

I noticed this introduction of an incorrect date by User:LutiV. I notice the user has already received three warnings from two different users about date errors. The user has not acknowledged, or engaged in any discussion, of the errors. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• It's propably not bureaucrats' thing to react in this case, but administrators. Matlin (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

  The user has been responsive in any case, let us wait. It is indeed more efficient to post such trhings at the Administrator's Noticeboard.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

  I note the user has been making many edits per minute. For any date before 1923, an evaluation of where the event took place and the calendar policy of the source of information must be made to decide if it is Gregorian or Julian calendar. Since sources often do not explicitly explain their policy, it is often necessary to look up well-known dates to infer the policy. This degree of care seems inconsistent with bot-like edits. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

  A new false date was introduced. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

  The massive edit were made under my supervision using the QuickStatements tool, within a GLAM project involving the Ricordi archive. This is the Mix'n'match catalog. Sorry for the mistakes, that were however very few. We are checking all the data. --Marco Chemello (WMIT) (talk) 08:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

  I personally checked the situation and all the data were already fixed December 3 (a week ago), few hours after they were inserted. Sorry for the unnecessary alert. --Marco Chemello (WMIT) (talk) 09:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘This edit by User:LutiV falsely asserts Johann Sebastian Bach was born 21 March 1685 Gregorian. Your claim about having fixed edits by December 3 is irrelevant; the edit at the beginning of this paragraph was made December 9.

The problem is the item contains two equivalent birth dates, 21 March Julian and 31 March, are both significant to people interested in Bach, as explained in Guardian article which is given as a citation in the article. The problem is the editor blindly grabs any old date, without ascertaining whether the source considers it to be Julian or Gregorian, and throws it on any old date statement, without considering whether the statement uses the Julian or Gregorian calendar. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

User:LargeDatasetBot

Is the current run covered by the approval? If not, I suggest we block the bot in the meantime. @GZWDer: --- Jura 09:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I feel the current run is needed to prevent future mistagged article (encyclopedia articles tagged as scientific one). Please centralize comments at Wikidata:Project_chat#Encyclopedia_article_items. I will stop the bot if others disagree with this idea.--GZWDer (talk) 09:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

It's merely a bureaucratic question: unapproved bot or approved bot? --- Jura 09:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

If you think it is a urgent issue, I have paused the bot.--GZWDer (talk) 09:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jura1: In the meanwhile, Special:Contributions/Reinheitsgebot is running tasks that is clearly not approved, with issues points out by community one year ago that is still not fixed, and is creating clear duplicates (Q104089493/Q104089492 although fix is easy).--GZWDer (talk) 09:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Different topic.

Since NBD, you should be aware that items like [[1] you create are highly problematic. --- Jura 10:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jura1: Fix is ongoing. The main topic will be added soon.--GZWDer (talk) 10:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

We can just nuke them if it's found that it's not useful. In any case, even the fix needs to be an approved bot run. --- Jura 10:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

correspondencia exacta: exactly equal items doesn't work without "https://"

Hi,

there is a failure when I tried to save that items Q23644488 and Q23644385 are the same river. The message in Spanish is:

No se pudo guardar debido a un error. A este URL le falta un esquema como «https://»: Q23644488

I added "https://" and it works, but I think the simple ID should be enough.

--Juan Villalobos (talk) 20:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I undid your changes, as they were not valid. Now the pages must be merged on the associated wikis first. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 11:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Hallo @Matěj Suchánek:

It is not possible to merge pages in any Wikipedia with any language. Particulary I can't Svenska nor Cebuano. Therefore exist these attributes, in order to mark as identical pages that have the same object but they can't be merged. See discusion here. Best regards, --Juan Villalobos (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Using exact match (P2888) was not appropriate (that's why you got an error). permanent duplicated item (P2959) isn't either. Check Special:Diff/1318755488/1318755549. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

OK. I will use it. Thanks, --Juan Villalobos (talk) 07:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Oversight/DannyS712

@Lymantria, Ymblanter: This has unanimous support from over 25 users and the 2 weeks have elapsed, so we need a bureaucrat to close this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 07:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Approval of Wikidata:Requests_for_permissions/Bot/DutchElectionsBot

So far I have gathered only support, and processed the feedback I have received. I could not find how long a discussion surrounding a bot request for permission should last, so sorry if I am too early. But I was wondering if I could get approved. Thanks! :) Dajasj (talk) 19:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we will wait for a couple of days, and then I am going to approve the bot provided no objections have been made.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)