Welcome to my talk page. Use it; don't send me e-mail.

I reply to messages left on my talk, on my talk page. If I left a message on your talk page, I will reply there (unless you specify otherwise).

SMAK.BE url resolver

edit

Hello! While cleaning some unproper merges I stumbled upon artworks that you imported from the SMAK in Gant, like Q22259650. Since 2016 however the URL for the collection has changed, and the url http://resolver.smak.be/collection/work/data/1478 used for statements and references doesn't resolve anymore. The ID however seems to stay the same, and the new working url is https://smak.be/fr/ouvrages-d-art/studie-voor-dubbelsculptuur-2-1478. Is there a possibility that you could recrawl the SMAK collection to update the URL? --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 04:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

DigitaltMuseum

edit

Hello! Your bot keeps (re)adding art-related restrictions to DigitaltMuseum ID (P7847), even after I've reverted them. I suspect this is because it's an instance of Wikidata property to identify artworks (Q44847669)? While it's true that this identifier is used for artworks, it's also used for people, organizations, events and others, so right now, we have restrictions claiming that e.g. Pablo Picasso (Q5593) and World War II (Q362) should be instances of artwork. What's the best course of action to avoid this? Einar Myre (talk) 06:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Einar Myre: if it also covers other domains, you shouldn't be using Wikidata property to identify artworks (Q44847669). I replaced it with Wikidata property related to art (Q27918607). Multichill (talk) 10:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can you please block User:Openaccess cma again?

edit

The bot is making the same errors as before, as recently as four hours ago. Thanks!!! Swpb (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

That's unfortunate. I disabled the bot again. Multichill (talk) 16:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Obviously wrong...

edit

... but how did this happen: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q2742614&diff=prev&oldid=2051846492 - Jmabel (talk) 01:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Jmabel: why are you asking me? You can see yourself that the item has a weird sitelink and the bot just copied it to Commons category (P373). It clearly says so in the edit summary: "created claim: Commons category (P373): 00036 (number), Adding missing Commons Category link based on existing sitelink". So look in the history who added the incorrect link and contact that person, not me. Multichill (talk) 21:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ah, sorry. I didn't follow that it was just trusting whatever crap might be there on the other site. - Jmabel (talk) 22:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Jmabel: bots amplify crap caused by humans so that it becomes more visible and the humans are more likely to notice and correct the mistake. This is a feature, not a bug. Multichill (talk) 12:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Still: there is nothing I see in the history of commons:Category:00036 (number) that I would expect to have connected to this Wikidata item. So the sitelink in question must have been from somewhere other than Commons. When I just now removed the link from Wikidata and purged the Commons page, the interwiki links and Wikidata Infobo content still showed up on the category. I killed the Wikidata Infobox and that got rid of it, but something very weird was going on here. - Jmabel (talk) 22:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
You're looking in the wrong history. User has been reported and warned for this. Multichill (talk) 12:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Import of incorrect information

edit

Hello! This is demonstrably incorrect, and it doesn't seem like the source should be understood that way either. I'm letting you know since I noticed in the revision history that the same piece of misinformation has been removed once before, and then promptly reinstated by the bot. Would it be possible to prevent it from adding it again?

Your bot work is much appreciated, by the way! Sinigh (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Sinigh: welcome to Wikidata. There is no truth, there is only sources :-)
You should not remove statements with valid sources. We have ranks for that, see Help:Ranking#Deprecated_rank. See this edit. Multichill (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Right, but true or not, the source does say "vanaf ca. 1958 tot heden (juni 2014)", i.e. from circa 1958 until at least 2014, yet both years were simply given as precise and definitive values. The source as such may be valid, but not for the claims that were made. Sinigh (talk) 22:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply