VojtěchDostálBot

Recent Changes spam

Hello,

Unfortunately, contrary to the description on the bot page bot doesn't have bot flag and all it's edits are visible in RC even when I disable bot edits view. Matlin (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me.

@Lymantria: Would it be possible to award a bot flag to my bot? I am pinging you because you were the one who approved my first and only bot request. Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 19:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand, according to Special:UserRights/VojtěchDostálBot your bot does have a bot flag, which I granted indeed. @Matlin:: Please explain? Lymantria (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Lymantria@Matlin Thank you. It seems the problem is that the bot flag will not show on edits with the Wikibase-Cli tool unless I configure it properly. I can't make it work now but I will try. Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 08:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@Matlin Should be working on the most recent edits. Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

https://iw.toolforge.org/editgroups/b/wikibase-cli/aa57b63362771/

https://iw.toolforge.org/editgroups/b/wikibase-cli/aa57b63362771/ This "details" link is not working. Can you fix it? Thank you, -- Ooligan (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, that link is provided by the Wikibase-Cli tool. Maybe try to report it on GitHub? Thanks Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Q33196

Data item embryo (Q33196) includes both plants, animals, and fungi, so it is not a match for NKCR AUT ID ph899782. I have created animal embryo (Q115664724) to match the "zoologie" description and the correct Commons category. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

ISNI id space removed

Interesting to learn the ISNI ID finally accepting value without proper spacing via your bot updates. For the longest time, I had such a hard time adjusting to putting space parsing ISNI digits. Now, I don't need to worry about. Thanks so much! jshieh (talk) jshieh (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@ShiehJ Yeah. Anyway, it is a result of a long discussion at Property_talk:P213#Proposal_of_changing_format_deleting_spaces. Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 08:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Ideally, that will also apply to all numeric identifiers, such as ISBN!! Thanks so much for making editor's life easier! ;-) jshieh (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the removal of spaces. Unfortunately, I'm still human and for this dying species ISNI 0000 0000 8204 228X was easier to read than 000000008204228X. --Kolja21 (talk) 07:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Merges based on VIAF clusters

Hi Vojtěch, imho a bot should not do merges. The guess "same viaf + same year of birth + same label via ..." = the same person is not reliable. Maybe the "fotógrafu suizu" (Q95346485) is identical with the "německý historik" (Q112481305) but I doubt it. @Geagea: Looks like you've added later a third person. @Epìdosis: FYI. --Kolja21 (talk) 10:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@Kolja21 Just to be on the same page: I think we can agree it does not matter which user does the merge (bot was programmed by me to do the merge based on this criteria). If I understand you correctly, you are against blindly merging people based on objective criteria such as those mentioned in the edit summary. I would understand that opinion, it is perfectly legitimate. However, the same criteria are used by many of us when reconciliating new information to existing entries. I could have just as well added the data to the existing item - it would not be a merge per se, just bad reconciliation, but the result would be the same. Is it then correct to say that merge is wrong, but reconciliation using identical criteria is OK? BTW I was asked to do this merge batch by someone, probably by @Epìdosis at Topic:X338zwmsbdouo0x4. Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 10:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast response. A human should know that "Keller" is a very common name. A human uses (or at least should) objective criteria + basic knowledge that a bot lacks. VIAF is a good start to look up but not reliable. --Kolja21 (talk) 10:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@Kolja21 Yeah, but the issue is with large imports with tens of thousands of people. Then you can't really go line-by-line... Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 11:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I probably didn't answer your question correctly. Imports are ok. The problem was the merge. --Kolja21 (talk) 11:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@Kolja21: Hi! For this specific case, I have now unmerged the items and marked the VIAF as conflated, thanks as always for reporting.

For the more general discussion, I agree that bots should (usually) not do merges because they lack basic knowledge to adopt extra-prudence in cases of likely homonyms. In the above case (Topic:X338zwmsbdouo0x4), however, there were 3.5k couples of probable duplicates spotted through VIAF and this batch-merge allowed to cut them to 1.3k (which I then managed to fix all manually); my guess was that, out of 2.2k mergeable couples using these criteria, merging through a bot all these couples and then fixing a few tens of cases manually would have been much more convenient (in terms of employed human work) than doing all these merges manually. Whilst I agree that fixing conflations generated by wrong merges takes surely much more time than doing a wrong merge, I thought that fixing e.g. 100 wrong merges with 2100 correct ones (probably the correct ones were even a bit more) was anyway better than checking all the 2200 cases manually doing 2100 correct merges and skipping the other 100. Of course, in cases where the numbers are much lower (hundreds, instead of thousands, of couples of probable merges) I am sure that checking everything manually is the better choice; here, given the high numbers, I preferred to proceed in this way, and effectively I have afterwards encountered probably less than 10 mistakes, so I think that in this case my guess was correct. Epìdosis 11:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

P.S. I was conflicted by Vojtěch who perfectly epitomized my thoughts in just one line ;-) of course, as I said, it is a matter of numbers, in the case of very big imports and with a predictably very low percentage of mistakes I think doing all the merges by bot and checking afterwards is the best choice for employing the (few) human energies we have more efficiently; with lower numbers, I prefer doing all manually as I said. --Epìdosis 11:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

sorry i'm on vacation I will answer on Friday. Geagea (talk) 14:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@Geagea: No problem. The person you've meant should be Thomas Keller (Q126727845): no description. --Kolja21 (talk) 10:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)