User talk:Mbch331

Hi there. Just curious, are you interested to become an administrator? You would make a fine admin here as you have filed many valid RfDs. Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 09:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested, just not sure if I know enough about Wikidata to become an admin. There are more tasks to do as an admin than deleting items. Mbch331 (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am very glad to see you are interested in running. Would you like to give it a try? I believe your passing rate would be high. I can nominate you if you want to. Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 07:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you nominate me, I'm willing to try. Mbch331 (talk) 08:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have created the page. Please accept the nomination here and transclude the page on the main RfA page. Thanks! Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 13:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have followed your hint for "The Callistan Menace" and the link seems to work. Let me know if there's anything else. Lucazuccaro (talk) 07:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I was just wondering why you made this change? As far as I can tell from open corps and thus this page this OC identifier is correct. ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 17:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I remember it. I thought the ID was for another company. Later I spotted the name change of the company, but forgot to revert myself. Just reverted myself. Mbch331 (talk) 17:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! :) I was just wondering if you had spotted something different to me! :D ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 11:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious why you undid the automatic creation of a redirect after a merge. When merging items in the past you deleted the page that was cleared, however the current policy doesn't allow deletion of pages after a merge. The page that no longer contains the information needs to be redirected to the page that now contains all information. So U recreated the redirect you undid. The deletion request will automatically be archived by bots and there will be no deletion of any item pages. Mbch331 (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was about old habbits. Merger created the redirect, i did not get it and took it to rfd than i read the merge page that says redirect is the right way. I should have trusted the tool. Thanks for the info.--Sayginer (talk) 13:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ik wilde de koppeling tussen Maatschappelijke Onderneming en de Engelse Social Enterprise graag ongedaan maken omdat deze echt niet klopt. Social Enterprise moet gekoppeld worden aan Sociale Onderneming namelijk. Er was even verwarring over die twee Nederlandse termen maar met de huidige verbeterde beschrijvingen en ook de toegevoegde achtergronden waar beide termen vandaan komen zal de verwarring nu hopelijk verholpen zijn. Lijkt me goed dan ook de koppeling met de Engelse term te corrigeren. Is dat mogelijk? --YtKemp (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ook op Wikidata geldt, VJVEGJG. Dus als de huidige informatie niet klopt, pas het gerust aan. Mbch331 (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

English | español | français | العربية | Nederlands | русский | +/−

Mbch331, congratulations! You now have the rights of administrator on Wikidata. Please take a moment to read the Wikidata:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Wikidata:Project chat, Wikidata:Requests for comment, and Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings, or modifications of protected pages.

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikidata-admin @ irc.freenode.net. If you need access, you can flag someone down at @ irc.freenode.net. You may find Wikidata:Guide to Adminship to be useful reading. You may also want to consider adding yourself to meta:Template:Wikidata/Ambassadors, and to any similar page on your home wiki if one exists. (Check Wikipedia:Wikidata/Wikidatans (Q14964498).)

Please also add/update the languages you speak to your listing at Wikidata:List of administrators. You may also like to add your username to this list if you would not like that items you delete at RfD get marked as deleted automatically. Again, welcome to the admin corps!

Best regards -- Bene* ^t_a^l_k 13:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Good luck with the tools. Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 13:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just came here to say congrats! I'm sure you'll use the tools well! :D --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 17:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if I tagged this correctly for deletion. Please take a look. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't. On Wikidata it is best to activate the Merge gadget and the Request Deletion gadget in your preferences. This way you can easily merge and request deletion of items. You can't add a deletion tag to an item. It is automatically tagged when the item has been added to Wikidata:Requests for deletions. However in this case, it was a duplicate item and merging of both items was needed. When you do this with the gadget a redirect is automatically created. I solved it for you. Mbch331 (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hoi, Mbch331, nu kan ik even in het Nederlands schrijven hier, makkelijk. Naar aanleiding van jouw opmerking over het verschil in types pagina heb ik een vraag. Ik kon de ene pagina niet aanvullen met extra interwiki links, omdat die op de andere al stonden. Daarom leken het mij te overlappen/dubbele pagina's te zijn. Is er ergens uitleg te vinden op wikidata hoe dat werkt? Ik ben hier niet zo thuis namelijk. Ellywa (talk) 11:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ik kom hier morgen op terug. Ik heb dit weekend geen tijd gehad voor Wikipedia/Wikidata. Mbch331 (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Op de Nederlandstalige Wikipedia staat al een uitgebreide uitleg (nl:Wikipedia:Wikidata. Wat je hier altijd in je achterhoofd moet houden, je schrijft geen artikel, maar voegt informatie toe aan een database in de vorm van statements. Een item kan maar 1 keer de eigenschap "is een" hebben. Een voornaam is niet hetzelfde als een doorverwijspagina. Ze kunnen wel allebei het zelfde label hebben. (In dit geval heb je dus de voornaam Elly en de doorverwijspagina Elly. Dat zijn 2 verschillende items voor Wikidata, terwijl je op Wikipedia dat gerust op 1 pagina kan hebben staan.) Wikidata is geen verzameling interwiki links, het is een eigenschap van een item, die per taal uniek moet zijn voor heel Wikidata. Een interwiki link is niet verplicht voor een item, maar maakt een item wel automatisch relevant. Mbch331 (talk) 10:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Friend, Thank you for this help! --Selvasivagurunathan m (talk) 11:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you undelete Petteri Lehtola (Q5478267)? I had just linked it from Reflexion (Q1193111). - Nikki (talk) 10:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done You need to re-establish the link though. - Mbch331 (talk) 10:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) - Nikki (talk) 10:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your great work at keeping Wikidata junk-free is amazing, sincerely, keep it up *salute*. I would like to request that New Mexico Cultural Encyclopedia & Lexicon (Q20668454) be undeleted. No interest in getting this publisher viewers, just want to fill out there published works, as their bibliographic information meets WD:N with "some structural need." I think adding the subclass of (P279) statement of unfinished creative work (Q2910675) would be smart on our part. 103.10.197.13 10:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still think they aren't notable, but it's up to you to prove otherwise. Mbch331 (talk) 10:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate, can do! 103.10.197.13 10:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, When is better to merge some items than make deletion request? For example, I just merged two items but the one (which I created by mistake) was empty and doesn't carry any useful information. --Termininja (talk) 10:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If two entities are the same, always merge. You don't know if anybody linked to it from outside Wikimedia. If you delete items, you break a valid link and they need to explore for the correct link. If you merge (and create a redirect), the link stays valid. They are still pointed to the correct item (through a redirect). Mbch331 (talk) 10:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Don't remove duplicate information before merging. When you merge duplicate information will be ignored. Mbch331 (talk) 10:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for making disturb to you.

For Q20680407 it is simply my fault to make a duplication of an existing wikidata (which is, Q4497461) by pressing a wrong key as I want to add commons into wikidata. Therefore I think it is no need to restore or redirect Q20680407 and simply let it vanish from wikidata.

Sorry again for my misbehaviour. --Foamposite (talk) 20:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The rules on Wikidata say that duplicate information needs to be merged and turned into a redirect. Deleting valid information and a valid history is in violation of the licence as well. That's why it always has to be a redirect. Doesn't matter what the cause is of the duplicate information, duplicate = merge + redirect. Never deletion. Deletion is only for non-notable items and items created as a test/vandalism. Mbch331 (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Gunnarsdóttir pages on the English and German Wikipedias are NOT disambiguation pages, take a look. That's why I went through all the trouble of manually removing every "disambiguation page" label from the data item. I don't care whether the duplicate item gets redirected or deleted, but please remove the disambiguation page labels. Thank you, Innotata (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Next time, please don't use "empty item" as a deletion reason. Explain why you didn't merge the item, but chose to move the sitelink. Lots of people move sitelinks when they want to merge items. So an admin doesn't know the difference between a valid move and a wrong merge. Mbch331 (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I realized I should have explained it more. However, please check that merges make sense before making them, including when declining deletion requests. Thanks, Innotata (talk) 17:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the discussion started at User talk:Samwilson. The Wikidata norms are being misapplied in this case, and until the general issue with linking to Wikisource is resolved, I suggest that no more removals be made. Otherwise, there will never be any reason inclusion of Wikisource, as every single Wikisource translation and work will have a unique and separate data item, with no interwiki linking anywhere. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the isbn on the entry is wrong, since it is for the 1999 paperback reprint, which is a specific edition. If specific editions must be on separate pages, then the main page for a book can never have an isbn unless there was ever only one edition of the book and there will never be any others. The Wikipedia article will also have to be removed, because the WP article is about the book and the movie adaptations, and not just about the book in the data item. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point. It isn't the best solution adding 1 edition the the main article, but there isn't a better solution at the moment. So I won't be reverting you. Mbch331 (talk) 06:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, the current data item has the publisher and date for one edition, but the isbn for a different edition. When any another Wikisource puts up a translation, that's another edition, with a new translator, publisher, date, etc. We really need a team of knowledgeable members from Wikisource, Wikidata, and Metawiki folks to sit together and talk over the challenges of tracking books (and similar works) in order to work towards a solution. This is a relatively simple case by comparison with some others I could point out. --EncycloPetey (talk) 07:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even een reminder: vergeet niet om de items aangemaakt door anoniemen te markeren als gecontroleerd. :) Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ik markeer meestal pas iets als ik tevreden ben over het aantal statements en zeker ben van de relevantie. Maar vergeet dat het ijdele hoop is dat een ander het alsnog aanvult. Zal wat vaker gaan markeren. Mbch331 (talk) 08:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mbch331, I reused IDs instead of creating new ones… Could you please restore the following items the time I save the data locally and create new items. I just need 5 or 10 minutes before deleting them. genium ⟨✉⟩ 18:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Request for Q17628743 | Q17622422 | Q17639187 | Q18413824 | Q2830712 | Q3186020 | Q2832290 | Q3186020 |
  • I'll undelete them. Let me know when you're finished and I'll redelete them. Mbch331 (talk) 18:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour, vous avez supprimer ma contribution, pourriez vous la remettre svp ?

Merci beaucoup Abdel.zairi (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That a website exists doesn't automatically make it notable for Wikidata. So what guideline from WD:N makes the website notable. Mbch331 (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point. However, this brand is important and incredibly popular, with a significant presence across multiple countries. It's logical that he is also present on WD with his official information. Abdel.zairi (talk) 15:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then you can tell me exactly which of the criteria of WD:N it meets. Mbch331 (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hoi, hoe selecteer je aan welke claim je de bron toevoegt? Bv. hier gebruikte je de verkeerde claim. En waarom voeg je die imported from Wikimedia project (P143) eigenlijk toe? Die claims die ik dit weekend heb toegevoegd zijn namelijk niet geïmporteerd uit nlwiki. bdijkstra (overleg) 21:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Ook dit is fout: dat is niet wat de bron beschrijft. --bdijkstra (overleg) 21:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ik had op mijn computer nog een lijst staan om te importeren. Via openrefine had ik die aan items gekoppeld en op die manier een lijst voor Quickstatements gegenereerd. Als er geen statements gewijzigd worden voegt hij toch de bron statement toe. Mbch331 (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ik geloof dat ik snap wat je gedaan hebt nu. Blijkbaar was je je niet bewust dat QuickStatements claims hetzelfde beschouwt als de hoofdwaarde gelijk is, maar met Kijkwijzer heb je vaak verschillen in de qualifiers. Beter je batch terugdraaien lijkt me.

En de gegevens op nlwiki zijn vaak fout en altijd bronloos, waarom zou je die überhaupt willen importeren in Wikidata? bdijkstra (overleg) 22:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nu maak je vanochtend dezelfde fout opnieuw. Dit e.d. is fout. bdijkstra (overleg) 08:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ga je de boel nog rechtzetten binnenkort? KrBot is inmiddels bezig geweest met het samenvoegen van claims die jij onterecht tot duplicaat hebt gemaakt (bv. hier). bdijkstra (overleg) 15:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dank voor het opruimen tot dusver. Er staan nog een aantal bronloze claims, bv. op Q181803. Ga je die claims verwijderen, of voorzien van imported from Wikimedia project (P143)? bdijkstra (overleg) 14:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Overigens voegde je hier een Kijkwijzer-claim toe terwijl dat item nooit een nlwiki-sitelink heeft gehad. Kan je in OpenRefine niet selecteren op items met bepaalde sitelinks? bdijkstra (overleg) 14:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]