User talk:Sänger

Welcome to Wikidata, Sänger!

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) 15:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

vandalism

Hello, how about w:en:Creation of man from clay? --Fractaler (talk) 06:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

What about those fairytales? This is an encyclopedia, it's scientific. Those are myths. Homo Sapiens is definitely not made from clay, it's mostly water and flesh and bone. The definition of material is material the subject is made of or derived from, and that is not clay. If there is a property about mythological stuff, it may be in there, but material is a real world property. Sänger (talk) 07:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

An encyclopedia? Wikidata? --Fractaler (talk) 07:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Is the homo sapiens made of clay or not? Where is the scientific reference for this property? Wikidata has to follow the same rules of WD:V as every project in the wikiverse. Sänger (talk) 07:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Label: human (different from Homo sapiens (Q15978631)). --Fractaler (talk) 07:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

And? Label Mensch, höheres Säugetier aus der Ordnung der Primaten, or common name of Homo sapiens (Q15978631), unique extant species of the genus Homo. It's not about some philosophical concept, but the real thing. Could I put Spaghetti in there as well, in accordance with His Noodly Appendage? Sänger (talk) 08:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, science (Q336) said: "human" = "homo sapiens" and "homo sapiens" = "homo sapiens"? How about religion (Q9174)? All Q - only for science (Q336)? --Fractaler (talk) 08:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I do not have the faintest idea, where to put mythological stuff in regard of humans here in this WD, but definitely not under a not specially marked property about the material the body is made of. Ain't there any properties for mythological stuff? I'm not that fluent in WD, but this one was clearly a real property. Sänger (talk) 09:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

concept (Q151885) human - homonym (Q160843), =: dictionary (Q23622) №1 (of the average man/citizen, the man in the street) "human being; A person; a large sapient, bipedal primate, with notably less hair than others of that order"; dictionary (Q23622) №2 (of systematics (Q3516404)) - species (Q7432) (=abstraction (Q673661)); dictionary (Q23622) №3 (by religion (Q9174)) - point of view - w:en:Creation of man from clay --Fractaler (talk) 09:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Hmmmm...Neither en:Human nor de:Mensch nor nl:Mens, the wp-articles about this object, state anything about humans made of clay. So why should it be in here, the database for the articles? Sänger (talk) 10:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC) Edith says: de:Homo Sapiens and nl:Homo Sapiens are both redirects to those articles, so there's no difference.

And regarding religion: The wikiverse is about encyclopedic, i.e. scientific, stuff it's not a religious book. Those themes are as well subjects for articles, but no base for scientific description of the real world. Sänger (talk) 10:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

wp-articles about - WP = vestigial structure (Q627214), =obsolescence (Q282744) (for human); WD = progress (Q247792) (for human+bot). WD ≠ "the database for the articles", WD = "free knowledge database project hosted by Wikimedia and edited by volunteers": 1 - scientific description of the real world, 2 - philosophical description of the real world, 3 - religious description of the real world, 4 - "the average man/citizen, the man in the street" description of the real world --Fractaler (talk) 11:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

So what do you want to tell me? Humans are definitely not made from clay, full stop. To say so in a property without any limiting description is plain false. If you want to put such stuff in there, you should use a property that's properly named as mythological, religiously biased, in fairy tales, whatever, not the plain property material, that's just for material the subject is made of or derived from, and thre is no clay anywhere in a substantial amount in a human being. Sänger (talk) 11:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I want to tell: human - homonym (Q160843). You use homonym (Q160843) (as " human being"). --Fractaler (talk) 12:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not, it's plain the same. a normal word and a latin taxon for the same thing, a human. If you want to say something about human (mythology), use the proper item. Sänger (talk) 12:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

set human - homonym (Q160843); consists of: subset 1 human (mythology); =subset 2 Homo sapiens (Q15978631) (systematics (Q3516404)); = subset 3 real human (≠ taxon). You use subset 2 (abstraction (Q673661)) and subset 3 (reality (Q9510)). And you use 2=3. --Fractaler (talk) 12:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

As I said: Mensch == Homo Sapiens. 2 and 3 are just different names for the same thing. The other one, the homonym Mensch (Mytholgie), is something very different, and must not be mixed with the real stuff. It has to be a different article, or whatever you call those things here in this service agency for the other projects. Sänger (talk) 12:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

the same thing? 2 taxon Homo Sapiens (systematics (Q3516404)) = 3 real human (≠ taxon)? abstraction (Q673661)=reality (Q9510)? --Fractaler (talk) 12:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Look here: de:Mensch vs. de:Homo Sapiens and nl:Mens vs. nl:Homo Sapiens. And the differences between en:Human and en:Homo Sapiens are not that big, it's the same taxo box. If you want to put mythological stuff here in this real world item, please start with discussing it here, not on my private discussion page. Sänger (talk) 12:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Ок --Fractaler (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I really think the changes I make are not right

I really think the changes I make are not right  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Greg Toumpel (talk • contribs) at 16:00, 18. Sep. 2017‎ (UTC).

I can't agree more, but why are you going on doing them? Sänger (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I will try not to do it again

I will try not to do it again.--Greg Toumpel (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Tell this someone else, I simply don't believe anything you say. You just don't edit in a useful fashion, you are more or less a vandal. You've reverted and rereverted and rerereverted and rererereverted yourself so often, it seems to be the only way of contribution you are capable of. I fail to see a single useful edit yet. Sänger (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I just saw this typical nonsense: 10 edits for a single word. You know nothing about WD. Sänger (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Cobalamin

Hello. You reverted a change I made to the sitelink of Cobalamin, with the comment that it was "vandalism". It's not vandalism. I'm trying to merge the lists for cobalamin and Vitamin B12, which are the same thing. Unfortunately I have run into a block. I have been trying to use Special:MergeItems, but after doing quite a bit of work I get the message "Failed to merge Items, please resolve any conflicts first. Error: Conflicting descriptions for language de." But I removed the German description for one of them. So I don't know what to do. Can you help? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 11:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Cobalamin (singular) vs. Cobalamine (plural). They ain't the same. B₁₂ is just one special type of the de:Cobalamine. It's not synonymous. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 11:22, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, warum sagt die "description" für "Cobalamin Q3329800" auf Deutsch "essentielle organometallische Verbindungen mit Cobaltatom"? Both groups of articles talk about the same group of chemical compounds. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 13:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I saw the delinking of lots of articles from the german de:Cobalamine, that obviously were not justified. They were mere stubs, but about the same subject, so they should have stayed linked to each other. I don't know the intrinsics of WD, I just saw the destruction for the most important part: Interwikilinks. My solution would be:

If there ist really a merger asked for, look for the smaller number (i.e. older item) and first connect all articles to this item.

Then put any information, that was not included in the lower number item in there.

Ask for the deletion of the now redundant and superfluous higher number item.

If they are about different real world items (for example singular vs. plural), keep both, but change the description accordingly. I can't care less about the fate of redundant and thus superfluous items, they should just vanish. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 13:50, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Das ist was ich versuchte zu tun. Can you please put back what I did, so I can finish? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 14:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see, it's name chaos in the Wikipedias, with both names possible as article and redirect: Vitamin B12 and Cobalamine. Sorry for my intervention, I just saw the disappearance of essential interwikilinks without any explanation. You should have written something meaningful in at least one of your edits, there was no reason given at all for your edits. So for me they just looked like plain vandalism, while you were probably surprised by my reaction. I just tried to put them together at bs, but there are two distinct articles, that both are mere stubs and don't look that different, but bs is no language I know anything about. One more look shows me, that there are several doubles (ar, bs, en, es, mk, uk), only ca, de, eo, gl, it, ja, kk, lb. lt, nl, no, ro, sk, sv, are possible. I'll try with them to change the affiliation. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 14:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Been there, done that, unfortunately as well without explanation. Why is it possible to do so without any explanation? That's suboptimal here in comparison to the wikipedias. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 14:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't know how to leave a comment while editing. To edit, I click on a little link that says "edit" to the upper right of the part I want to edit, I make a change, and then I click on publish.

I will now try again to merge the two. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't understand. I guess you have done the merge. Thanks. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I've done any merge, there are still the doubles in ar, bs, en, es, mk, uk, where Vitamin B12 and Cobalamine are two distinct articles. In enWP it's just a redirect, in the other languages they are real different articles. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 15:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, not a complete merge. But you did what I wanted to do -- to make the articles on Vitamin B12 link to many of the articles on cobalamin, such as the German article. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 06:51, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Jura1 fake item - descriptive item used as unit

What do you think about removing it from Q5. Q5 is highly used and this Jura1-claim makes Wikidata look silly. No reliable source found. Probably pure fake. 78.54.224.108 16:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

What's this silly nonsens supposed to mean? Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 16:28, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Maybe a unit for silliness? 78.54.224.108 21:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: don't blank items

Hi Sanger,

Please make a deletion request if you think items and referenced statements should be deleted. Do not blank items or delete valid sitelinks to existing Wikipedia articles.

Deleted sitelinks would lead other users to create additional items. --- Jura 08:34, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

This is a well known cross-wiki vandal, that keeps spamming this hoax in wikis. A lot have since protected the pages against creation, but not all. Why do you support this cross-wiki troll by keeping his lies in WD? Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 08:36, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

• You are breaking sitelinks. This not a venue for your crosswiki crusade. --- Jura 08:39, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

This is a cross-wiki crusade by the troll. Tell me how to prevent him from disrupting the Wikiverse without deleting his nonsense. You keep insisting that lies and deception are more relevant then correct deletion of hoaxes. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 08:41, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Correct deletion is going to Wikidata:Requests for deletion, not deleting a sitelink from an item. --- Jura 08:45, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

But deleting all wrong data about this hoax should be fine, thus emptying completely but keeping the wikilink. Or what else could be done in the meantime until someone shows up to delete this hoax-spam? Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 08:49, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that you mistaken string input fields on label, description, and identifier for a place to add your personal edit comment. --- Jura 08:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

The problem is, that you can't write a reason for your edits in any edit summary, you just do it and everyone has to guess why you did it. That's very suboptimal here on WD. I can write some summary here, so that you can see what I wrote here. How can I put an explanation to the removement of the fake IMDB-entry to my actual removement? Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 09:12, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Sänger write Bihalji and name is Bihali. He write this with purpose to insult name Bihali

Sänger write Bihalji and name is Bihali. He write this with purpose to insult name Bihali King Jarilo (talk) 13:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Der Name wird mindestens auf Deutsch Bihalji geschrieben, auch die Datei auf Commons, die Du in der deWP durch Deinen Ethno-POV aus dem Artikel geworfen hattest enthält ein j. Du stehst hier ziemlich allein da. Ich bin übrigens nicht der einzige, der Deinen Vandalismus revertiert hat. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 13:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

predatory publishing (Q29959533)

Hello Sänger,

deine Beschreibung ist wertend. Wertungen enthalten immer einen POV. Ich halte meine Definition daher für korrekter und werde sie in den nächsten Tagen wiederherstellen.

Mfg, -- Phylax Lüdecke (talk) 17:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Meine Beschreibung ist aus der Einleitung des Wikipedioaartikels kopiert, die ist also richtig. Deine weißwaschende Beschreibung ist unzulässig, den Hauptzweck dieser Raubverlage nicht zu erwähnen ist POV, das ist eine implizierte Wertung, nämlich deren konstituierendes Merkmal mutwillig wegzulassen um etwas vorzutäuschen, was nicht existiert. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 17:33, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

acid mine drainage (Q341381)

Hast du saure Wässer mit hohen Gehalten an gelösten Metall-, Halbmetall- und Sulfat-Ionen, die aus Erzlagerstätten, Kohlenlagerstätten, Bergwerken (Minen) und Bergbauhalden ausfließen und die Sulfid-Minerale, insbesondere das Di-Sulfid Pyrit enthalten tatsächlich trotz mangelnder Eignung für eine Beschreibung 1:1 aus der deutschen Wikipedia kopiert?-- Phylax Lüdecke (talk) 17:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Selbstverständlich, aus dem Teil des Wikiversums, der für solche Inhalte nun mal die eindeutige Definitionsgewalt hat. Kannst Du gerne leicht kürzten, aber der wesentliche Inhalt sollte bestehen bleiben. Geht nun mal manchmal nicht besonders kurz. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 17:35, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

How to correctly use data item about different concepts

The only valid place for the German article about de:Rassentheorie is race theory (Q115154806) and not human race (Q3254959), which is about the concept race.

Like @MisterSynergy: recently said The technically correct approach is to create a separate data item for each individual concept. If these concepts are related, try to link the data items with suitable statements.

You may learn about Wikidata:Sitelinks to redirects if you would like to add a manual sitelink between the articles.

Kind regards. Strom auf der Gurke (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

The whole concept of "race" within the human species is just debunked bullshit, The articles in the Wikipedias belong together, they need to be interwikilinked. I don't care about any senseless nitpicking and unusable atomisation of items here, the main purpose is to get the Interwikilinks fine. And here the whole conglomerate of bullshit about human races is just ine heap of dung, only dumb-asses and Nazis try to differentiate.

If you want this utter bullshit, you are responsible, that all Interwikilinks will stillwork fine afterwards. If you can't do it, just don't touch it. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 16:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)