User talk:Looperz

Hallo, achte beim zusammenlegen von items im Merge items Distributed Wikidatagame bitte genau darauf, was du machst, du hast jetzt zweimal die gleichen nicht zusammengehörende items gemerged, das nicht zusammen gehört. (Das NSG Maschbruch (Q1906801) und den Wald Maschbruch (Q32124969)) In diesem Fall konnten die items nur gemerged werden, weil sie noch nicht korrekt verbunden waren, achte aber bitte genauer darauf. Danke. --GPSLeo (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have recently undone dozens of edits of mine that added claims of occupation: priest to items, because you added occupation: catholic priest, which is more specific. The more specific value is indeed better, but choosing to undo my edits generates a notification for me, and also implies the edit was bad. These notifications are a bit spammy because you've edited so many items, and my original edits were not incorrect, just less precise.

May I recommend, instead, to just edit the value "priest" into "Catholic priest" in the future? Or to completely remove the claim I added, but not undo it? Thanks. Asaf Bartov (talk) 20:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In deed I use the way to edit or to remove most times. But there is one important exception: In case the position held 'priest' was added after it was already a 'catholic priest' I used the undo-function and the comment 'was/is already more precise'. That is what i really check in the version history before i decide to use undo instead of a simple edit. In any case i used undo for 'priest' declarations that existed before the declaration 'catholic priest' was set I am sorry for for using the undo and promise to take care in future. Kind Regards. --Looperz (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're absolutely right! Those were added after Catholic priest was already there. Your approach makes sense. Thanks for explaining! Asaf Bartov (talk) 02:57, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Please make a request on Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot. Else your bot can be blocked. Regards, Di^Mon₂₇₁₁ 15:48, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dimon! I did. 12 days ago. Wikidata:Requests_for_permissions/Bot/EpiskoBot --Looperz (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning,

How has it been collaboratively contributing to Wikipedia and its sister projects?

I would really appreciate your views on the Anyone for Everyone program.

Anyone for Everyone is a campaign to encourage and guide internet users to contribute more to Wikimedia projects. The campaign aims to encourage 19 actions/activities that anyone could do on Wikimedia projects (Commons, Wikidata, Wikibooks etc.) for the benefit of everyone. Can you help expand the list by adding bullet points?

Thanks for weaving the lines and letters that make information neutrally open to the world.

Danidamiobi (talk) 23:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stumbled on your latest edit on Willibrord Benzler (Q91025) - shouldn't the consecrator roles use object of statement has role (P3831) as qualifier. Because its not the bishop of the item (subject) who has the role, but the bishop in the statement (object). Ahoerstemeier (talk) 08:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I think so too. "object" is not meant to say that the value is not a person, but that it refers to the value of the statement (as opposed to the item the statement is on). --- Jura 12:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It should be fairly simple to fix this by bot. You could request it on Wikidata:Bot requests. --- Jura 12:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I see. That Propery was an auto-suggested qualifier and so i started to use it.

Knowing how to replace that by bot: Should I or better a bot replace subject has role (P2868) by object of statement has role (P3831) is that right? (I could write that bot)

If you like i could let bot do this.

--Looperz (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Meanwhile I set up the bot permisson request. Meanwhile I will use the old way. As soon as my bot has the permission, i will start using the other way (object of statement has role (P3831)).

--Looperz (talk) 19:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This subject-object thing is keeping my brain busy. It depends in fact on the perspective: From the perspective of the Page the consecrator is an object. But from the perspective of the Claim consecrator (P1598) itself, the Consecrator is a subject. We will see, what the bot permission request will result in.

--Looperz (talk) 02:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the label of P1598 isn't ideal. I'd rather use "consecrated by" or "has consecrator". With that, I think the roles are also much clearer.
  BTW we used to have one qualifier for both until someone went through all of them to split them .. occasionally I get them wrong too and we already had to do a batch for some other property. --- Jura 02:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So now I am back in town (back from the blocked 6h) and beeing a good boy i use object of statement has role (P3831) now. But could somebody please look after the start of my story? The autosuggestions are still proposing subject has role (P2868) as the single proposal for consecrator (P1598). You do not believe? Check https://www.wikidata.org/w/api.php?action=wbsgetsuggestions.... That is where my mistake started. I am fixing this in my edits. Could somebody please fix the autosuggestions. Thx. --Looperz (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It's updated once in a while (monthly?) based on actual uses, i.e. we need to fix all uses then wait a month or so. --- Jura 15:41, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing almost all of them. It seems that a recent batch might have used old data though [1]. --- Jura 14:03, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yes, seems like. i started the automatic revert for that one. thank you very much for your hint. --Looperz (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the number #1511 of that batch tells me it must be an old batch, that 'suddenly' came to live. anyway. undo is automatically in progress.

This batch was started on 17:12, 01 July 2019 (UTC) and ended on 13:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC). that is the reason why. i am sorry, but i did not remember this one could be still alive. --Looperz (talk) 18:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Looperz, I think that Catholic bishop (Q611644) is not a position held (P39). This could be occupation (P106). For example, in the case of Dvornikovich Mihály (Q27949639), position held (P39) was "Bishop of Csanád" and "Bishop of Vác". But he is a Catholic bishop (Q611644). --Gerwoman (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think so. If bishop (Q29182) is a position held (P39) then Catholic bishop (Q611644) is it, too. Concerning the rules for consecrator (P1598) it even has to be set under position held (P39). So I am sorry, but i have to reset your change. --Looperz (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But bishop (Q29182) is not a position held (P39). --Gerwoman (talk) 11:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do yo know? My Source is the rules of consecrator (P1598) and yours? --Looperz (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At Marc-Antoine Berdolet (Q152944) there are now also two claims for the same position - Catholic bishop (Q611644) and diocesan bishop (Q1144278). And since other churches than the catholic also have diocese bishops (e.g. Archbishop of Canterbury (Q29282)), both statements cover part of the truth. Do we really need even more positions like "Catholic diocese bishop" and "Catholic archdiocese bishop"? Not sure if other churches also have titular dioceses however... In Willibrord Benzler (Q91025) you even duplicated two positions - for some dioceses there are also specific sub-classes like Roman Catholic Bishop of Metz (Q15729481). Ahoerstemeier (talk) 07:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Catholic bishop (Q611644) starts beeing a bishop at the moment of his Consecration and has this position usually until his death. During his live he can be a diocesan bishop (Q1144278) for multiple dioceses. So both Qualifiers make sense. He could also get "elevated" to archbishop or start his carrer as archbishop. Catholic archbishops are a little like diocesan bishops always bound to a diocese. In case the diocese is a not really existing diocese (anymore) you speak of titularbishops or even titulararchbishops. So there are differences between those "bishopships". Bishops and Archbishops are positions in other christian religions, too. So imho it makes sense to distinguish those ones. I am also not sure whether the special rule concerning titular-(arch)dioceses exists in other religions, but therefore i did not create any "catholic titular (arch-)bishop"-position. --Looperz (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You were told by several users that your edits are incorrect and you still continued to do these on a large scale. I blocked you so that mess doesn't increase. Please make sure QuickStatements doesn't resume after your block expires. Multichill (talk) 17:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted this edit because it uses the Gregorian calendar when the Julian calendar was obviously the correct calendar for a 12th century date in England. I reverted, rather than fixing the calendar, because I personally have not viewed a reliable source which gives this date. None of the Wikipedias are reliable sources.

I suggest reviewing Help:Dates before adding any date prior to Thursday 1 March 1923, the date the last country that had been using the Julian calendar converted to the Gregorian calendar (Greece). Jc3s5h (talk) 15:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"...because I personally have not viewed a reliable source which gives this date.". I've added the desired source and changed the calendar. Sorry, I did not decide to use the Gregorian Calendar. That was Quickstatements doing that. Fixed that one. --Looperz (talk) 16:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RMaung (WMF) 17:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RMaung (WMF) 19:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

For information, in French (and in many other languages), descriptions like for Martin IV (Q227719) should start with a lowercase initial (« pape » and not « Pape »). I see you added a lot of mistakes, could you correct them please?

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 13:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Done. Thank you for your hint. --Looperz (talk) 13:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem (that's avery common mistake) and thank you for the quick correction. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 13:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone your edits to Federico De Martino (Q56491202), which did not make sense. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Andy. You are absolutely right. Seems like I mixed to people with the same name. All starting in one of this litte careless mix'n match games. Thus I created Federico de Martino (Q83886585) separately. --Looperz (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, (i use Google translate)
The robot has a tendency to create duplicates in the functions of Catholic bishops.
For example, we have : Charles-Joseph Compans de Brichanteau who is évêque de Maurienne/bishop of Saint-Jean-de-Maurienne, but the robot adds more https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1144278 Q1144278 + Q360645.
How can we avoid these additions which double the information already given and which overload the Infoboxes? --B-noa (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you B-noa, for giving me the chance to explain that. At the moment Wikidata knows about 6,000 dioceses (i counted by their ids on catholic-hierarchy.org). I don't want an own wikidata-object for each bishop-position in each of them. Please just think about they start with a vicar, have apostolic administrators and are sometimes updated from dioceses to archdioceses. Every time in each diocese we would have to create a new wiki-data-object. So I save Wikidata thousands of separate entries using more common data-objects. And these "special entries for each diocese" even have more problems: They are for example often not available in multiple languages and if translated they can end up in extra duplicates, too. At the moment Q95174294 is only available in french, whereas diocesan bishop (Q1144278) is available in more then 40 languages. And when it comes to using a bot switching to those specialized tags is nearly impossible. To serve that purpose they had to be perfectly linked to a unique identifier and most of them are not. There are more than 40,000 bishops to be checked for their several positions as diocesan bishop, archbishop, apostolic administrator, -nuntius, and so on. I am really sorry, but i cannot take care of a single diocese having created a own wikidata-object for their own bishops. In my eyes these are the bad duplicates that we should delete. BUT: They are often linked to some nice and usefull special wikipedia-articles and so they should be kept alive because of their linked extra information. Otherwise those ones are badly translated and highly redundant and if you would ask me to decide which one of the duplicate-twins we should delete, I would know, who would have to bite the dust. So my compromise is: Let them live both. And I would be pleased, if I was able to convince you to do the same. Kind regards. --Looperz (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Thank you for your reasoned response which allowed me to understand another overall vision. I understand the complexity of the classification and the necessary standardization for WP less advanced in the creation of articles.

As a user of the WP:fr Infobox, I did not understand the advantage of having a multiplication of redundant information : Q611644 + Q1144278 & Q:... of the diocese and the sometime the "special entries for each diocese", more specific for navigation, which I think will eventually be the norm.

I therefore accept with good grace your proposal to leave the two options, committing myself not to rewrite what I considered until now as duplicates. B-noa (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. : Example for the infobox

On a different but related matter, I just wanted to let you know that I merged some duplicate items (Henri de La Tour (Q85853422) and Jean de Murol (Q1685948) this morning but I did some before and I'll probably do more).

For the discussion above, yes, it's a tricky situation and I think that this is the job of the infobox to detect and not display the redundancy (Wikidata will always have more and more precise data than Wikipedias need).

Cheers, VIGNERON en résidence (talk) 07:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thank you --Looperz (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Looperz,

Really sorry for the inconvenience. This is a gentle note to request that you check your email. We sent you a message titled "The Community Insights survey is coming!". If you have questions, email surveys@wikimedia.org.

You can see my explanation here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I just reverted an edit made by Episkobot adding a predecessor on Saint Nicholas (Q44269)position held (P39)diocesan bishop (Q1144278). Based on chronology it is impossible that Maximos III Mazloum (Q3853129) replaced the former. I don't know what caused the error, but if you could have a a look it would be appreciated. Cheers, --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 11:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that hint and for fixing it. Looking at https://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/diocese/d3m29.html I think I have an idea, what went wrong. --Looperz (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Looperz. I don't understand why are you removing the occupation (P106): diplomat (Q193391) for so many entries. Could you explain, please? Thanks. --Gerwoman (talk) 15:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I was maintaining entries of clergymen, that have the position of an nuncio (Q157037). This position is defined as a mixture between a diplomatic rank (Q303618) and a Catholic vocation (Q63188808). So all owners of this position are always diplomats, too. I took care to not remove entries with an extra source in my operation.

So only the duplicate information of beeing a diplomat was removed. Looperz (talk) 16:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The bot seems to have confused José Santos Guardiola (Q916426) with Bishop Juan Félix de Jesús Zepeda who does not seem to have a WikiData entry. There does not seem to be any relationship between the two. Dcheney (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Bot trusts into the attribute Catholic Hierarchy person ID (P1047) which was set by Nono314 this happened in 2015 --Looperz (talk) 06:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]