User talk:Multichill

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).

February 2013 April 2013 May 2013 June 2013 July 2013 September 2013 October 2013 November 2013 December 2013 January 2014 February 2014 March 2014 April 2014 May 2014 June 2014 July 2014 August 2014 September 2014 October 2014 November 2014 December 2014 January 2015 February 2015 March 2015 April 2015 May 2015 June 2015 July 2015 August 2015 September 2015 October 2015 November 2015 December 2015 January 2016 February 2016 March 2016 April 2016 May 2016 June 2016 July 2016 August 2016 September 2016 October 2016 November 2016 December 2016 January 2017 February 2017 March 2017 April 2017 May 2017 June 2017 July 2017 August 2017 September 2017 October 2017 November 2017 December 2017 January 2018 February 2018 March 2018 April 2018 May 2018 June 2018 July 2018 August 2018 September 2018 October 2018 November 2018 December 2018 January 2019 February 2019 March 2019 April 2019 May 2019 June 2019 July 2019 September 2019 October 2019 November 2019 December 2019 January 2020 February 2020 March 2020 April 2020 May 2020 June 2020 July 2020 August 2020 September 2020 October 2020 November 2020 December 2020 January 2021 February 2021 March 2021 April 2021 May 2021 June 2021 July 2021 August 2021 September 2021 October 2021 November 2021 December 2021 January 2022 February 2022 March 2022 April 2022 May 2022 June 2022 July 2022 August 2022 September 2022 October 2022 November 2022 December 2022

Can you please block User:Openaccess cma again?

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

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

Obviously wrong...

... 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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

You're looking in the wrong history. User has been reported and warned for this. Multichill (talk) 12:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Import of incorrect information

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)

@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)

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)

Art History Loves Wiki - Munich, January 10-12, 2025

Hello,

will you join: Art History Loves Wiki Conference in Munich, January 10-12, 2025, to present SOMA?
Would be a blast & also just perfect to continue where we ended at Provenance Loves Wiki in Berlin:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art_History_Loves_Wiki
The focus of the conference will be: „collections“ meet Wikidata

Regards, Pippich (talk) 12:48, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Pippich: thanks for the invite (and the email)! Would love to come. Already put it in my calendar and looking if I can fit it in. Multichill (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Deletion requests for monuments

Hi. I'm aware that notability is about more than Commons categories. I reject the idea that notability is met for the monuments simply because they exist though. A lot of them were basic graves for random people that as far as I know aren't notable in any meaningful way themselves. Plus as I stated in the DRs the items weren't linked to any sources outside of the Wiki Loves Monuments IDs. Which again as I stated in the DRs isn't an indicator of notability. At that point you could just having a Wikidata item for any grave out there regardless of Wikidata:Notability simply because it exists.

Otherwise where does Wikidata:Notability say things that are a part of objective reality are inherently notable? And what are you basing your opinion that they are historic monuments which are notable enough for Wikidata on? I'd like an answer to both questions or I'm just going to renominate the items for deletion since this whole thing really just comes off as POV editing on your end. Adamant1 (talk) 00:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Adamant1: Being included in Wiki Loves Monuments is a well established criterion for notability so it was an easy closure for me. Not all things just get included, all countries have curated lists of monuments. We rely on that.

I can also do an action/reaction prediction: If you're going to renominate any of these items for deletion again, I'll consider that disruptive and will take necessary actions. Multichill (talk) 13:42, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

OK. Can you point to anywhere saying being included in Wiki Loves Monuments is an established criterion for notability? Wikidata:Notability certainly doesn't say that and as far as I can tell no one in the original proposal said it does. Or should I just take your word for it?

And as a side to that, I really don't appreciate the threats either. I don't think it's that ridiculous or against the guideline to ask someone for evidence backing up their claim that an item is notable and then nominating said item for deletion if they can't or aren't willing to provide any. That's all I'm doing here. I really don't need to be threatened as a part of that. There's zero reason what-so-ever to turn this into a confrontation or to otherwise act hostile towards me just because I'm asking you a question about something. The last time I checked though properties don't inherently show notability. So again, I'd like to know what your basing your opinion on. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

You announced that if I wouldn't do something, you would disrupt Wikidata. I announced that if you would disrupt Wikidata, I would take necessary actions. Do not treat others in ways that you would not like to be treated. Multichill (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)