User talk:Sartle az

Hi Ayelet Zadok, good to see you're working on art. Some corrections:

• Please add collection (P195) directly and as qualifier to inventory number (P217)
• Don't use official website (P856), but use described at URL (P973)
• Don't convert from cm to inches.

Example with fixes. Thank you, Multichill (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Multichill: It's been a long time since you messaged me, but I thought to follow up as we're now ramping up our contribution efforts for Wikidata -

• We have improved our bot for all the issues you've identified. Your feedback was very helpful.
• Re official website (P856) / described at URL (P973) - Is there an easy way (e.g., batch tool) to automatically convert all previous official website (P856) statements that were submitted by our bot (sartle.wiki.bot) into described at URL (P973) statements?

Thank you! --Sartle az (talk) 05:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You could do a query and use https://quickstatements.toolforge.org/ to remove it?

Something else, what is Gerrit van (Q98667411)? That should be just Gerrit (Q1514735). I see you created a couple more of these weird items. Please check and clean up. Multichill (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I saw you are quite busy changing values for people. I came across this change. You ignore other sources, saying in this case that Cellini was born on 'November 3rd', by just removing them, because you prefer another source which states 'November 1st'. Fact is that Treccani and BNF still mention November 3rd. Removing this is not appreciated. If two (or more) different values are found, Wikidata should contain both (all). If you are certain some value is absolutely wrong, you could lower its rating (or upgrade the level of the date you found to be really trustworhty).

I think the first mentioned date should be restored, with your date as a second value.

In the text provided, I read 'It happened that she was delivered on a night of All Saints, following the feast-day, at half-past four precisely, in the year 1500.' and 'I was born in 1500, on the first of November, at four hours after nightfall'. The second sentence clearly indicates that it was the first of November. The first seems to me to be less clear. 'All Saints' is celebrated on November 1st. But 'following the feast-day' indicates, in my opinion, that is was after the day of the feast. I am not sure if time measurement in those days started at midnight, as is normal in our epoch, or at nightfall, as indicated in the second sentence. Four hours after nightfall in November, on the northern hemisphere, would be before midnight; four hours after midnight is on November 2.

Thanks for adding more information to Wikidata, RonnieV (talk) 23:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RonnieV: Thank you for your feedback!

• These changes were submitted by our bot based on data provided by our team of researchers / editors.
• I asked our team to review the specific case you provided, and we'll fix/revert this, as you suggested.

• Is there a simple way (e.g., sparql or api-based query) to identify all similar cases where we have overridden values, so that we can fix them?

• Based on your input, we have improved how our bot submits preferred data, so that in cases that we have identified a more accurate value (properly sourced), the rank for the existing value would be deprecated and our value would be added with its reference and a normal rank.

• A quick clarification. If the existing value in WD doesn't have a reference, should its rank be deprecated, or would it be appropriate in such case (where we have a properly-sourced value) to just override it?

Thanks again! Sartle az (talk) 06:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sartle az,

Thanks for your reaction.

About Cellini, I just saw another flaw in your bot. In this edit it states that the given date (1 November 1500) would have been a Gregorian calender date. The Gregorian calendar was introduced in October 1582, after the dead of Cellini. According to the location of the action, it took until 1923 before this calendar was accepted all over Europe, whilst other countries still (partly) use other calender systems.

It's good to know your bot is submitting edits based on data provided by a team of researchers and editors. Wikidata is completely filled by editors, who (usually) have been looking for good and reliable sources for the information they provided, though some information has not been handled correctly in the process. Errors might sometimes be explained by differences in the meaning of words and Wikidata-items. Take for instance Q48942, Q68131879 and Q48282. For my (Dutch-based) orientation, the first references to someone attending any school in first or second degree (±4-16/18 years old, lagere of middelbare school), the second would refer to children in the first degree (±4-12 years old) and the third to people attending a university or Hochschule (third degree, roughly 17+ years old), not to be confused with the American and Canadian High school. Errors might also have been caused by error-prone interpretation of text elements, wrong categorisation

I'm not aware of a simple query to identify where your bot has overridden existing values. Sparql is mostly used to get actual data out of a system, API-queries could help us here. A bot script running through all your edits to find out where you did replace information and where you did a 'delete and insert'-action could help to get all these cases. Given the current 4702 edits, this does seem to be a not to expensive call. Manually checking this list could also be done. Unfortunately Wikidata gives the same description for changing the value or adding a source to a value, when I look at this edit and this one. Maybe Edoderoo, Mbch331 or User:Multichill (to name just some) are aware of an existing tool for identifying these edits.

Unless you are really sure the new value is absolutely right and there are no means to explain the other value (mixing up people?, other calender system, ambiguous sources), I would recommend to have both values sources and at the same level, no changing of the ranking.

Though we prefer to have all values properly referenced, it is not obligated. If you encounter a non referenced value and you have another value which is referenced, deprecating the non referenced value could be considered. Overriding this non sourced value in a bot-run is not appreciated. Human action to find a possible source for the not yet referenced value might be indicated. For a single value item (like a birth date), this will normally be picked up by someone, for a multi value item, like an occupation, people seem to be changing jobs all the time ;) Countries is an even harder one, as borders have been shifting all over the time, nations have accepted other names, have joined and been separated,... I have a list of people who seem to be born in The Netherlands, but died before this country started existing...

Thanks again for helping to improve Wikidata, RonnieV (talk) 10:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I feel you use a rather weak source for your changes compared to the one used before. You also add nonsense facts like he died in Falun Municipality (Q501545) that didnt exist when he died. You got a warning = contemporary constraint (Q25796498). The source you deleted was based on Dictionary of Swedish National Biography ID (P3217) that is 100 times better than the rkd I guess you used. As you have 52 wiki articles and > 120 000 views on those articles and many of those articles use data from Wikidata I feel this bot needs a much more mature design - Salgo60 (talk) 15:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is incorrect:

• "Art and national" ? Shouldn't have a capital and making it longer is a violation of the principle of having a brief to the point description. Please revert any additional description changes you did, additions are fine.
• The item already has a phone number (P1329) that is more specific
• The item already has coordinate location (P625), the extra is redundant
• Rijksmuseum (Q25861166) has an architect, not Rijksmuseum (Q190804)

Changing descriptions and adding redundant statements on high profile items like this one is not something you should be doing. Multichill (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You never responded to this question and if you never fixed anything. Blocked User:Sartle.wiki.bot pending response. Multichill (talk) 12:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]