User talk:U. M. Owen

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Logo of Wikidata

Welcome to Wikidata, U. M. Owen!

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! --Epìdosis 18:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo. Warum wurde meine Artikelbeschreibung vom Rosental in Bulgarien geändert? Sie war völlig ausreichend. Gruß Majaya1

Unexplained removal of correct descriptions[edit]

Why do you revert correct descriptions in Wikidata items like here? Please explain your motivation behind this. Thanks. Maxeto0910 (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Maxeto0910: I don't edit from mobile, please send me a proper link.--U. M. Owen (talk) 19:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please stop reverting gramatically and content-wise correct edits like here. If you want to improve a description, you are welcome to change it accordingly; I will not revert your changes in this case. However, removing the description entirely, even though it is correct, just because you don't like it, is definitely a clear step backwards, regardless of what standards you apply, and by definition vandalism.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Maxeto0910: You may edit every language at Wikidata you'd like but please don't edit German if your descriptions are not proper German.--U. M. Owen (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The description was gramatically correct. I'm a native German speaker, and the description is from the German Wikipedia article.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please stop doing destructive edits like here by removing correct descriptions just because you don't like them, whereupon you add another description which is just as correct.
As I said, I have nothing against people who want to improve descriptions by making them more detailed, but why do you have to first remove the whole description when it is 100% correct? You can just replace it with a new one in one edit. It's by definition vandalism to just remove whole correct descriptions. Other editors would have already reported you for vandalism. I'm not such a person who is quick to report others, and I always try to alleviate the dispute with exchange first, but if you don't stop after you was informed about it several times, I will eventually take appropriate action as well.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 17:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You did it again several times:
https://m.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1929092751
https://m.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1929093329
Please stop doing that, or I will report you for vandalism.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 17:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Maxeto0910: It is not wrong to revert obviously wrong descriptions before improving them. I've made this to a habit of my Wikidata editing.--U. M. Owen (talk) 17:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but there was nothing factually or formally wrong with these descriptions.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 17:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for bringing this up again, but please refrain from reverting perfectly valid descriptions (Blutgasanalyse). Thank you! --Eistreter (talk) 15:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can see you went on to improve descriptions instead of just deleting them. Well done. Have a nice day. --Eistreter (talk) 16:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Eistreter: Hi, I've mixed you up with Mr. Maxeto. I'm sorry for reverting you. Have a good day!--U. M. Owen (talk) 16:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

United States Medical Licensing Examination (Q1156524)[edit]

@Maxeto0910: Hi Maxeto, your first description was nonsense, which usually may be reverted without further comment. Now you seem to have copied dreigliedrige Prüfung in den USA from de:United States Medical Licensing Examination which lacks any meaning when not explaining that it is a medical exam. Not perfect descriptions may be improved but wrong shall better be reverted.--U. M. Owen (talk) 14:28, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why was it nonsense? It's not very meaningful and not a very common word (which is why I wrote it more detailed), but gramatically and content-wise correct.
"Not perfect descriptions may be improved but wrong shall better be reverted."
That's true. You can add that it's a medical exam if you want to. I think it's a sensible addition. Maxeto0910 (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning[edit]

Merging[edit]

Succimer (Q423814) and dimercaptosuccinic acid (Q56604713) are not about the same concept and must not be merged, be more careful while merging items. Wostr (talk) 12:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wostr: I'm sorry, I was mainly concerned about the German article. It says succimer = Gemisch der drei Stereoisomere, not just the meso form.--U. M. Owen (talk) 12:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In such case just move the sitelink from one item to another, no other action is needed, especially not the merge. Regards, Wostr (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Babel[edit]

Do you think you could add Babel information to your user page? It is not mandatory, just useful. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Names[edit]

Hello! You may not have got a notification from my recent edit in Khalifa (Q30102470), so I figured I should write here as well. Name items are handled in a special (and perhaps unintuitive?) way here on Wikidata. Please see Wikidata:WikiProject Names for how they are modelled. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 11:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jon,
I'm doing this because Kh for خ is wrong in German according to de:Wikipedia:Namenskonventionen/Arabisch. The current system is somehow a tyranny of the English language and cannot be considered really multilingual.
Kind regards U. M. Owen (talk) 11:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(I think our messages may have crossed each other. I moved your message here to keep it all in one place.)
That item (Khalifa (Q30102470)) is used for people whose native name is actually spelled "Khalifa" (so in a country/language where the Latin script is used, like e.g. Tanzania or Indonesia); there should be a different item for people with the spelling "Chalifa", and yet another item for people whose native names are spelt "خليفة". Jon Harald Søby (talk) 11:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jon Harald Søby: So am I not only free, but justified to remove the item e.g. from Salman bin Hamad, Crown Prince of Bahrain (Q58140) who is an Arab national?--U. M. Owen (talk) 11:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@U. M. Owen: Definitely! If that surname item was used for him, then that was the wrong item to use. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 11:57, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jon Harald Søby: Has anyone systematically created items for purely Arab surnames like خليفة yet?--U. M. Owen (talk) 12:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure, but surely not to the same extent as for Latin-script names. @Harmonia Amanda might know. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 12:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Sorry to have taken so long to answer, I was on wikibreak. We are missing a lot of names around the world, including for language in Latin script. However, some countries place their census data in open data, and from those were created names items. That was for example the case for the USA, which mean we had on Wikidata some Latin-script names which were very obviously transliteration of immigrants' names in other writing scripts… while still missing those original names in our database. We have sometimes organized deliberate contributions sessions to create most used names by countries (we have done that for several regions of India, some African countries, etc.), but yeah, there is still a very marked bias for English, because there was already data about it we could just import on Wikidata… (For the story, I have asked the French Statistics Institute and they gave me a database all in capital letters and missing the diacritics, which are significant in French, meaning that I couldn't import this data at all…). So are we missing names in Arabic? SO MANY! And if you know of census data in Arabic where we could see what names we are missing and create them, that would be immensely helpful.
Our current data *model* is neutral between writing systems, what counts is how it's written, whatever the system. But our *data* is infinitely biased towards American names, in particular. What we sometimes did and probably should try to do again was to generate lists of contemporary people by country without family names, and just create all the missing names one by one… I don't read Arabic at all, so I've not worked on that personally, because I would be too worried to make mistakes, but that would be very helpful to do! The gadget Namescript complete labels, descriptions and aliases based on the properties instance of (P31), native label (P1705) and writing system (P282), which makes it easier to create missing names. To use it, add

importScript ( 'User:Harmonia_Amanda/namescript.js' ); to your common.js. I hope this will help! --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 15:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

de:SECO Wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung[edit]

Hallo, zur Beschreibung siehe auch de:SECO Wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung M2k~dewiki (talk) 13:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@M2k~dewiki: Du weißt aber schon, was eine Imagebroschüre ist?--U. M. Owen (talk) 13:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your merge of Land reform movement (Q104710514) (n3 Sm4 Bodenreformbewegung)[edit]

Hi @U._M._Owen: You have merged the above item into Land reform movement (Q889627). Probably you were not aware that these are different things: While having the same title, the former is not "land reform movement" itself, but a subject category of the 20th Century Press Archives (Q36948990), which is used to organize the folders of this archive (and their representation in Wikidata). You find country-specific folders of the archive with What links here - e.g. Eastern Europe : Land reform movement (Q104724198). So the item you merged is part of a larger, but quite specific structure. The main topic Land reform movement (Q889627) should not be drawn into this structure. For that reasons, I have reverted your merge. Please, for the future have an eye on the "instance of"/"subclass" fields and on the "What links here" list before you do a merge, to not unwillingly merge items which stand for different things. - Don't hesitate to ask if you have questions - cheers, Jneubert (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jneubert: I find the arguments in favor of merging more convincing.--U. M. Owen (talk) 18:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GEMET translations[edit]

moved over to User_talk:PKM#GEMET_translations.--U. M. Owen (talk) 12:05, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzle[edit]

You commented here "one item for the killed animals, one for the type of crash". Okay, you may have your interpretation, but how do you then justify this redirect in place since 2008 that implies that the article en:roadkill covers both of your points. The Dutch article does not make the distinction that you make regarding "types of crash", it just mentions that there are traffic accidents with animals on the road, just like in the article en:roadkill. What is wrong with linking en:roadkill to nl:wildaanrijding? VanBuren (talk) 11:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@VanBuren: At Wikidata we link identical concepts: Een wildaanrijding is een aanrijding en geen dier dat is aangereden. (Dutch is clearly not my best language)
Redirects at Wikipedia say nothing, they were never created for ontological reasons.--U. M. Owen (talk) 12:46, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bezeichnungen[edit]

Hallo, siehe Help:Label/de: "Die „Bezeichnung“ (englisch: label) eines Wikidataeintrags gibt die gebräuchliche Namensform wieder". Eine Schutzgebietsnummer ist sicherlich nicht Bestandteil der gebräuchlichsten Namensform. Gruß -- Dealerofsalvation (talk) 13:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dealerofsalvation: Guten Tag, wo habe ich den Fehler begangen? Ich wollte wahrscheinlich zwei gleichlautende Bezeichnungen eindeutig machen.--U. M. Owen (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[1], [2]. Bei Wikidata gibt es, im Unterschied zu Wikipedia, Commons etc, keinen Grund, Bezeichnungen eindeutig zu machen. Nur die Kombination aus Bezeichnung und Beschreibung muss eindeutig sein. --Dealerofsalvation (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical compounds[edit]

In the near future there will be no instance of (P31)chemical compound (Q11173). This is part of the process of cleaning up statements in all items about chemical entities and is a result of a discussion in WikiProject Chemistry. Unfortunately I can't do everything instantly, I have made more than 1,5M edits so far and in the near future I plan to do about the same number using QS, mostly regarding instance of (P31)chemical compound (Q11173) and subclass of (P279)chemical compound (Q11173). Wostr (talk) 15:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wostr: Please use a bot if you want to remove 10.000s of statements. Removing P31:Q11173 destroys years-old SPARQL queries which are still hardwired to it.--U. M. Owen (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using QS for this (dealing with chemical compound (Q11173) is not on the top of the list right now), but every day along other edits I'm moving instance of (P31)chemical compound (Q11173) to subclass of (P279)chemical compound (Q11173) if needed or deleting instance of (P31)chemical compound (Q11173). instance of (P31)type of chemical entity (Q113145171) is now present in nearly all items regarding chemical entities, instance of (P31)chemical compound (Q11173) was not present in thousands of items in the past, so it doesn't matter at all to the functioning of these queries, as they already had these problems before the changes. Your reverts don't make sense at all, sooner or later instance of (P31)chemical compound (Q11173) will be no more. Wostr (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wostr: I simply remember that before SoCalChemBot (talk • contribs • logs) there wasn't so much bogus chemical content at Wikidata.--U. M. Owen (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't really know what you mean by 'bogus'. The previous model of chemical content in WD was faulty, what I think I have explained enough before the changes in WD:CHEM. For the previous few months I really tried to clean this mess up and I'm not even halfway there. Over the last few years, everyone has added different statements in many items, not bothering about what it looks like as a whole. instance of (P31)chemical compound (Q11173) was incorrect from the beginning, but it took years before any changes to that. Wostr (talk) 15:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC) PS and just so you know, I've done thousands of edits related to moving/deleting/adding chemical compound (Q11173) so far (you really want to check my contributions and revert some changes just because some SPARQL query somewhere may not work as intended years ago?), it surely may break something in the process, but given the number of items, it can't be done in one evening. Simply adding instance of (P31)type of chemical entity (Q113145171) took over a month, cleaning up most instance of (P31) and subclass of (P279) took me few months and I'm still doing this. Wostr (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wostr:

Simply adding instance of (P31)type of chemical entity (Q113145171) took over a month [..]

you are really doing this by hand? Shall I ask the bot operators for some help?--U. M. Owen (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it took over a month using QS (preparing lists for QS is not a problem, but QS have some problems from time to time), it was over 1,2M. Most other edits was done also using QS, a few thousand by hand, because some things have to be manually checked. Wostr (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beschreibungen Karkoschka[edit]

Hallo, was du hier auf Biegen und Brechen (warum?) als Änderung durchdrücken willst, ist absolut untypisch, unnötig und inhaltlich – surprise - nicht besonders richtig, vgl. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/search/fq=%7B!type%3Daqp%20v%3D%24fq_database%7D&fq=%7B!type%3Daqp%20v%3D%24fq_property%7D&fq_database=database%3A%20astronomy&fq_property=property%3A%20refereed&p_=1&q=author%3A(%22karkoschka%2C%20erich%22)&sort=date%20desc%2C%20bibcode%20desc. Die Beschreibung braucht diesen Zusatz nicht. 2A02:8109:8340:1398:9D6D:D0D7:6B0B:244D 22:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deine Änderungen sind nicht nachvollziehbar. Ich hatte den Artikel auf de.wikipedia.org bearbeitet und weder ist eine Abgrenzung zu einem anderen Astronomen dieses Namens notwendig (da es keinen gibt), noch stimmt der Arbeitsschwerpunkt. Grüße, --Polarlys (talk) 07:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

water sawmill[edit]

Hallo, We have to change the name of item into sawmill. How to do it ? Raresvent (talk) 09:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Raresvent: Hallo,
are you OK with my new solution?--U. M. Owen (talk) 09:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry I thought it was a bug... I removed all the wikipedia links because it's clearly about the Watersawmill and not Sawmill... but anyway do as you think is right I'm fine with that. Raresvent (talk) 09:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Menswear/men's clothing[edit]

Please don't remove "different from" statements with references in order to merge different concepts. The retail segment known as "menswear" in English is not the same as the general class of men's clothing across all cultures and time periods. They may be called by the same label in some languages but they are not the same. - PKM (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unterscheidung nicht durch Label[edit]

Du hast deine Änderung bei US-Truppenübungsplatz Grafenwöhr (Q60766339) wieder hinzugefügt und dabei geschrieben, wie man das Gebiet sonst unterscheiden soll. Label sind nicht dazu da Items voneinander zu Unterscheiden, dafür gibt es die Beschreibung. Präfixe in das Label zu packen ist jedoch schädlich, dadurch entstehen bei der Nutzung dann Sätze wie: Das FFH-Gebiet FFH-Gebiet US-Truppenübungsplatz Grafenwöhr. Oder Tabellen von FFH-Gebieten haben dann in jeder Zeile nochmal die Info, dass das ein FFH-Gebiet ist. GPSLeo (talk) 14:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GPSLeo: Hallo Frauke,
ich verstehe gerade nicht, um welche Nutzung es geht. Die Nutzung auf Wikidata wird erleichtert, wenn Labels nicht gleichlautend sind.--U. M. Owen (talk) 14:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wer ist Frauke? Wenn ich aus Wikidataitems einen Satz bilden will, was regelmäßig vorkommt, nehme ich das Label der Eigenschaft instance of (P31) und das Label es Items selbst. Oder eben in den Schon genannten Listen, die dann überall in der ersten Zeile erst mal ein FFH-Gebiet stehen hätten. GPSLeo (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GPSLeo: Entschuldige bitte meine Namensverirrung. Da das FFH-Gebiet nach dem Truppenübungsplatz benannt ist, sollte der Name wenigsten in Anführungszeichen stehen.--U. M. Owen (talk) 16:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nahezu alle Schutzgebiet sind nach ihrem Ort benannt. Willst du wirklich vorschlagen die Namen aller Schutzgebiete in Anführungsstriche setzen? GPSLeo (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fragen[edit]

Bzgl.: https://m.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1968564365

1) Inwiefern ist die Definition deiner Meinung nach ungeeignet? Es wäre im Übrigen sinnvoll gewesen, wenn du das bereits in der Bearbeitungszusammenfassung erklärt hättest. 2) Wo liegt das konkrete Problem, wenn die Erklärung vom Wiki-Artikel stammt? Maxeto0910 (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong merge[edit]

This was a bad decision, since these two family names are different: Szucs and Szűcs Pallor (talk) 19:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pallor: Sorry, I haven't seen.--U. M. Owen (talk) 19:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Call for participation in a task-based online experiment[edit]

Dear U._M._Owen,

I hope you are doing well,

I am Kholoud, a researcher at King's College London, and I am working on a project as part of my PhD research, in which I have developed a personalised recommender model that suggests Wikidata items for the editors based on their past edits. I am collaborating on this project with Elena Simperl and Miaojing Shi.

I am inviting you to a task-based study that will ask you to provide your judgments about the relevance of the items suggested by our model based on your previous edits.

Participation is completely voluntary, and your cooperation will enable us to evaluate the accuracy of the recommender system in suggesting relevant items to you. We will analyse the results anonymised, and they will be published in a research venue.

The experiment should take no more than 15 minutes, and it will be held next week.

If you agree to participate in this study, please either contact me at kholoud.alghamdi@kcl.ac.uk or use this form https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfA1wfdBfCRlcG3WhDyc-V8lzgPNx3fDFCNXkyn4CSwahXZ_A/viewform?usp=sf_link

Then, I will contact you with the link to start the study.

For more information about my project, please read this post: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Kholoudsaa

In case you have further questions or require more information, don't hesitate to contact me through my mentioned email.

Thank you for considering taking part in this research.

Regards Kholoudsaa (talk) 12:23, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please Don't Remove Statements for "Undisclosed gender" in P21[edit]

Hello, you removed a statement for "sex or gender" (P21) "undisclosed gender" here. The statement was correct, and was meant to protect this person from having gender added to their item erroneously or without their consent. Why did you do this? I am reverting this change. --Crystal Yragui, University of Washington Libraries (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Clements.UWLib: Hi Crystal, currently I don't know about further bot runs trying to impute a gender from the first name. This will not be tried again for good reasons.
Under this circumstances having no P21 property is functionally equivalent to having set "undisclosed gender".--U. M. Owen (talk) 20:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not functionally equivalent. The absence of a statement suggests that the person may or may not have publicly disclosed their gender identity. "Undisclosed gender" means that they have not or do not wish to do so. The "undisclosed gender" item exists for this specific reason, and is becoming more widely used. It isn't ok to just unilaterally decide to remove these statements without discussion because you disagree with the data modeling. People set up bots trying to input binary genders based on labels all the time, and I am certain it will happen again. --Crystal Yragui, University of Washington Libraries (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Clements.UWLib: People set up bots trying to input binary genders based on labels all the time: First of all I've always been against this; but this is not an argument. You may watch your items to avoid this.
You've just invented ('unilaterally') a new way how you want the items from UW to be modeled. This is clearly incompatible to the Wiki principle.--U. M. Owen (talk) 21:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't invent the "undisclosed gender" item, I only made use of it. To be clear, are you saying that you are not against the specific statements on items that you deleted, but against the use of "undisclosed gender" as a value of P21 more generally? This seems like a good topic for the discussion page on that item, rather than the two of us getting into an edit war over specific statements. Should we start a discussion in the item for undisclosed gender? --Crystal Yragui, University of Washington Libraries (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Clements.UWLib: I don't have time for such discussions. May we please conclude this by noting that I haven't made any further edits in those articles of yours? I don't like to be misrepresented as 'edit war' suggests.--U. M. Owen (talk) 21:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Are you going to continue removing similar statements in other items? If that is the case I don't think saying "I don't have time for such discussions" is appropriate. --Crystal Yragui, University of Washington Libraries (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Clements.UWLib: Without any proof like changeset diffs I consider your assumption as prejudiced. I participate in this project to get things done, not to hover over individual items [please tell me if an American person would say this differently ;)].--U. M. Owen (talk) 21:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to accuse you of having made further such edits to other items, but to ask you if that is your intention. I've only seen three. Your responses above have given me the impression that you might still intend to make further deletions of P21 statements with "undisclosed gender" values, and if that is the case, I wanted to have a discussion with you about it. If that is not the case, I am happy to conclude this discussion. --Crystal Yragui, University of Washington Libraries (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rosinenpicken[edit]

Hi, I undid this because Rosinenpicken is the exact German term for cherry picking. And it has nothing to do with cream skimming. In fact, both the German entry Rosinenpicken and the English entry cherry picking are quite similar and use some of the same sources. So why did you move Rosinenpicke in the first place? Andol (talk) 22:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Andol: Hallo Andol,
im Englischen wird Rosinenpicken als Geschäftspraxis Cream Skimming, als Argumentationstrick Cherry Picking genannt. Rosinenpickerei und sich die besten Rosinen herauspicken dürftest du als Deutscher schon ebenso oft gehört haben. Meine jetzige Lösung ist nicht ideal, trennt aber die Konzepte.
Vg,--U. M. Owen (talk) 22:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Das mag ja sein, aber darauf geht der deutsche Artikel mit keinem Wort ein, sondern beschreibt exakt das, was im Artikel cherry picking beschrieben wird. Damit ist deine Lösung nicht nur nicht ideal, sondern einfach eine gewaltige Verschlechterung. Ich habe mich vor dem Schreiben des Artikels intensiv mit der Materie befasst und zahlreiche Literatur gelesen, bei der immer nur von cherry picking geschrieben wurde. Und als Hauptautor möchte ich einfach nicht, dass der Artikel mit einem falschen Data-Objekt verlinkt ist, wenn es über ein Dutzend richtige gibt. Ich hoffe, das ist nachvollziehbar. Du kannst natürlich gerne einen deutschen Artikel zum cream skimming anlegen, aber bitte nicht irgendwelche Artikel verbinden, die nichts miteinander zu tun haben. Das war einfach eine deutliche Verschlechterung, die Leser in die Irre führt und die ich deswegen rückgängig machen werde. Bitte akzeptiere das. Viele Grüße, Andol (talk) 22:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Andol: Wart' bitte noch eine Sekunde: Hast du das Wort noch nie in einem anderen Kontext als der Argumentationstheorie gehört oder benutzt?--U. M. Owen (talk) 22:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doch, umgangssprachlich. Aber das beschreibt der Artikel nicht. Kann man aber alles mit einer BKL lösen. Die ich jetzt auch anlegen werde, bevor es ganz konfus wird. Andol (talk) 22:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Andol: Weil Willi P (talk • contribs • logs) cream skimming wörtlich verstanden hat habe ich diese Edits überhaupt getätigt. Das wollte ich lösen und es war in keinster Weise persönlich gemeint.--U. M. Owen (talk) 22:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ist ok, ich habe verstanden, um was es dir ging. Ich denke, mit einer BKL ist allen am meisten geholfen. Da kann man die umgangssprachliche Bedeutung sowie den von dir ergänzten Satz abhandeln und dann einen Link zum Rosinenpicken in der Argumentationstheorie bieten. Und die Wikidata-Links passen dann auch. Einverstanden? Dann mache ich das morgen. Nach einem Blick auf die Uhr habe ich heute doch keine Lust mehr... Andol (talk) 22:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ich habe nun eine BKL angelegt und den Artikel auf Rosinenpicken (Argumentationstheorie) verschoben. Wenn du über die BKL schauen und sie überarbeiten willst, siehe [3]. Andol (talk) 15:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clouds and Light: Impressionism in Holland (Q121231353)[edit]

Würdest du bitte derartige Änderungen unterlassen. Das Buch heißt Wolken und Licht. Impressionismus in Holland, ohne Punkt danach. Nicht Katalog "Wolken und Licht: Impressionismus in Holland". Weder mit Doppelpunkt. Noch mit Anführungszeichen. Noch mit Zusatz davor. Einfach nur Wolken und Licht. Impressionismus in Holland – Danke. --Matthiasb (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

… und was soll dieser Edit??? --Matthiasb (talk) 18:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Matthiasb: Es geht um 4 ähnlich aussehende Gemälde mit demselben Titel, ich bin noch am Rechercheprozess (außerhalb des Browsers).--U. M. Owen (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Naja, in die Bezeichnungszeile kommt immer der Bildtitel. Der in diesem Fall sogar per Einzelnachweis bei der Aussage "Titel" nachgewiesen ist. Was zu variieren wäre, ist die Beschreibung. Es ist die Kombination aus Bezeichnung und Beschreibung, die eindeutig sein muß. Matthiasb (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Matthiasb: Es gibt Bilder aus Serien, Bilder mit konkurrierenden Ansetzungen, übersetzte Bildtitel, etc.. Dieser Fall erschien mir nicht völlig eindeutig.--U. M. Owen (talk) 18:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Overlay für Raspberry Pi OS zur Langstrecken-Videoübertragung"[edit]

Hi, warum hast du denn bei Q109735506, Q123182636, Q109757409 und Q109735506 die deutsche Erklärung auf diesen Text geändert? MyRobotron (talk) 06:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MyRobotron: Hallo, schau dir bitte mal die Quelltexte auf Github an: Diese Programme haben keine eigenen Linux-Distributionen erfunden, sondern bauen auf Bestehendem auf; hier Raspberry Pi OS, was selber den Paketmanager und vieles andere mit Debian teilt.--U. M. Owen (talk) 12:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ja da stimme ich dir zu. Ubuntu baut auch auf vielem von Debian auf, aber ist auch eine eigene Distro? Aus meiner Sicht ist zum einen Overlay vielleicht nicht so passend (?) und zum anderen unterstützen die meisten Projekte ja nicht nur RPI / ARM sondern auch andere targets inkl. X86/IA64. Finden wir da nicht eine bessere Beschreibung, die sich auch für EN lohnt? --MyRobotron (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MyRobotron: Es werden auch andere SBCs oder x86 unterstützt, aber alles mit Raspberry Pi OS (Q890474)!--U. M. Owen (talk) 20:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry aber die Aussage kann ich nirgendwo wiederfinden. Klar nutzen die Projekte gepatchte Wifi Treiber und gehen damit recht tief ins System, aber das sind doch keine devicetree overlays für RPI OS? Am Ende sind es hier doch normale Anwendungsprogramme, welche die Treiber im Monitor / Injection mode raw ansprechen. Beides zusammen kann man für die Bequemlichkeit auch als fertiges Image / Distro beziehen kann, klar. Wäre da nicht eine allgemeinere Beschreibung mit UAV / FPV Fokus für alle hilfreicher? --MyRobotron (talk) 11:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MyRobotron: Ich finde eben auch, dass es sich um normale Anwendungsprogramme auf einem gepatchten Kernel handelt. Es wäre anmaßend, sie als Betriebssysteme zu bezeichnen, wenn die gesamte Verzeichnisstruktur und der Paketmanager von Debian übernommen worden sind; und Debian selbst sich nur eine Distribution des Betriebssystems Linux nennt. custom images könnte man wohl sagen.--U. M. Owen (talk) 12:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, im Sinne von Help:Description/de und der Verständlichkeit für alle die keine Insider sind, habe ich das nochmal verallgemeinert. Bitte lass uns deswegen keinen edit-war anfangen, es gibt ja noch genügend andere Arbeit für freies Wissen 👍 --MyRobotron (talk) 11:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OpenIPC basiert nicht mehr auf OpenWRT[edit]

Hi, bei Q122978028 hast du die deutsche Beschreibung dahingehend geändert, dass diese auf OpenWRT basiere. Das ist leider für die aktuelle Version nicht mehr zutreffend: https://github.com/OpenIPC/wiki/blob/master/en/menu-index.md Bitte ändere die Aussage doch dahingehend wieder ab. MyRobotron (talk) 11:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Danke für deine Anpassung. Im Sinne von Help:Description/de und der Verständlichkeit für alle die keine Insider sind, habe ich das nochmal verallgemeinert und gekürzt. Bitte lass uns deswegen keinen edit-war anfangen, es gibt ja noch genügend andere Arbeit für freies Wissen 👍 --MyRobotron (talk) 11:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dein kommentarloses undo empfinde ich als problematisch für eine Zusammenarbeit in einem crowdsourcing Projekt :-/ --MyRobotron (talk) 07:33, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MyRobotron: Tut mir leid, wird nicht wieder vorkommen.--U. M. Owen (talk) 11:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kunstmuseum Winterthur[edit]

Hello,

you right now messing up a few stuff where you reverted me right into and disturbs me some time already. You have in this article, the building (Building of the Winterthur Museum of Art (Q650299)) mixed up with one of the museums in it (Kunstmuseum Winterthur | Beim Stadthaus (Q14565992), but also Naturmuseum Winterthur (Q1970407) is in the building, earlier also Münzkabinett und Antikensammlung der Stadt Winterthur (Q1773583) and the parts of Stadtbibliothek Winterthur (Q2585160) used the same building, even though it was commonly refered as Kunstmuseum-building, for which it was built). Than you created another item for the museum Q119816375 (labeled is as former museum, equivalent to Kunstmuseum Winterthur | Beim Stadthaus (Q14565992) as a user of the building). If you want to label it a former museum, you for sure would a item for the new "Kunst Museum Winterthur" now, which is indeed a fusion out of three museums: Kunstmuseum Winterthur | Beim Stadthaus (Q14565992), Kunst Museum Winterthur | Reinhart am Stadtgarten (Q689829) and Hahnloser Collection in Villa Flora (Q56229813)) and has no item so far (and also not many external identificators yet - not even a german Wikipedia-article). This mix-up comes for sure also from Wikipedia itself.

Best regards from Winterthur itself, Fundriver (talk) 22:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Edith meint noch, ich hätte wohl auch deutsch schreiben können... Fundriver (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bivouac[edit]

Hi! I didn't understand the edits in Q879208 and Q21073100. What is the difference between the two items? From the lables and the properties it is not clear. --Superchilum(talk to me!) 13:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Superchilum: Hi Superchilum,
bivouac (Q21073100) is a now a relict since my moves. It was once superfluously created by Prism11 VYB05736 (talk • contribs • logs), then edited by Henry Merrivale (talk • contribs • logs) for whom Bivak = big military camp so I would suggest deleting it.--U. M. Owen (talk) 13:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If they are the same topic, why don't we just merge them...? --Superchilum(talk to me!) 13:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Superchilum: Some languages use the word Bivak for the meaning military camp (Q1198413), others for bivouac shelter (Q879208). I don't think that such a conflation like Q21073100 shall be redirected to Q879208.--U. M. Owen (talk) 13:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If they are not the same, then they shall not deleted, am I right? --Superchilum(talk to me!) 13:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And, is there a reason why you let commonslink and other properties in Q21073100 instead of moving them into Q879208? --Superchilum(talk to me!) 10:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Superchilum: and what to do with c:Category:Bivouacs (military camps)? May you recategorize it?--U. M. Owen (talk) 11:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, but I don't understand then. If something is a relict and should be deleted, it shouldn't contain links. So, the fact is simply that the two items must co-exist, one related to the military shelter, and the other one to "generic" shelter, am I right? --Superchilum(talk to me!) 21:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

descriptions[edit]

I know you don't find these descriptions useful, but many others do. Please leave them in place for others to use in their work. Gamaliel (talk) 15:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Error[edit]

Hi, I believe there was a mistake in this merge. I have removed the P31 but there might be other things to clean, NLS place type ID (P9230) for example? Symac (talk) 08:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Symac: Hi Symac,
according to this "4070205" is a research institute. But I've always wanted to ask a Finnish speaker for clarification. Are you one?--U. M. Owen (talk) 12:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
no I'm not sorry, I have just been told by a colleague of mine that this P31 was weird on research institute (Q31855) which is quite generic and has no direct link to Finnish institutes, looking at the history I saw it was because of this merge from you, that's why I wanted to inform you, but I don't know anything more. Symac (talk) 16:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating incorrect merges[edit]

Please notice that you are repeatedly doing the same merge after it was reverted: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q3250561&action=history . Another user had to recreate it as a new item with the same statements to correct your mistake. And besides, unbinding articles from items just to perform a merge and doing nothing else with them is a bad practice that should be avoided. Solidest (talk) 14:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

water cistern (Q12029081) / fountain (Q483453)[edit]

It might be true [4], but many people does not know difference and this change made lot of (1237) constraints. So I reverted it. If you think that your edit was correct, please help to find more correct solution. JAn Dudík (talk) 10:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strukturcode[edit]

More statements should be added to Q119212846, to be clear, what it's about (… or, merged?). Thanks, —Mykhal (talk) 10:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Art gallery: institution vs. building[edit]

It is unclear why you merged class for art gallery institution (Q98818526) into art gallery venue/building (Q1007870). I don't think this is right. The two items were even linked but you removed the link without providing any reason: Special:Diff/1997731932. Institution and building are clearly distinct, separate AAT entries for the two were also linked, 300312243 and 300005232, respectively. As is the case also with all other types of institution classes, and respective building classes, e.g. also library (Q7075) and library building (Q856584) building, an art gallery can operate without having its own building, or it can operate in multiple buildings, or in different buildings at different periods etc. 2001:7D0:81DB:1480:2C62:D1AA:D291:57E 15:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:U._M._Owen&oldid=2107949462"