Brugerdiskussion:Discanto
Hjerteligt velkommen til den danske Wikipedia, Discanto! ( English)
|
Masseoprettelse
[rediger kildetekst]Hej Discanto. Det er vigtigt at få styr på detaljerne, når man opretter mange artikler af samme slags. Jeg opdagede tilfældigt, at du i mange af artiklerne om sardiske byer havde glemt at tilpasse provins-navnet i tekstens første linje, så de (næsten) alle stod til at ligge i Oristano (provins), selv om mange af dem ligger i andre byer. Husk lige at rette dette, hvis du fortsætter med andre byer. Mvh. Arne (Amjaabc) (diskussion) 26. apr 2019, 11:01 (CEST)
- @Amjaabc: Ciao Arne. Ja, mange tak. Jeg havde allerede set dine ændringer og korrigerede fejlen i min model. Tak igen for din opmærksomhed. --Discanto (diskussion) 26. apr 2019, 11:07 (CEST)
Stop din bot
[rediger kildetekst]Du har ikke tilladelse til at køre bot på dawiki.
Du modsiger dig selv, når du på din brugerside påstår at du ikke bruger bot, på den anden siden beskriver din bot således:
- "The speed with which it creates the entries depends on the fact that it writes and verifies the data offline and only later it uploads them on Wikipedia."
Om din bot forbereder artiklen andetsteds og dernæst uploader på dawiki ændrer ikke ved at den er en bot. Det er almindeligt at botter arbejder sådan. Så uanset om du mener at din bot ikke er en bot, er det en bot. Før du sætter sådan et masseoprettelsesprojekt i gang bør du søge konsensus (jeg tror dog at det er få, der ønsker at dawiki ender som cebwiki), og desuden skal du ansøge om at få din bot godkendt.
De oprettede artikler er mangelfulde:
- By er fælleskøn. Ejefald af den bestemte artikel for fælleskønsord i ental er dens, ikke dets.
- Det bør fremgå af artiklerne at de er botoprettede.
- Dine artikler er kun på tre sætninger. De skal derfor stubmarkeres med den relevante skabelon.
--Madglad (diskussion) 5. maj 2019, 10:45 (CEST)
Re: Stop din bot
[rediger kildetekst]- Dette afsnit er kopieret fra Brugerdiskussion:Madglad#Re: Stop din bot:
First of all, especially on Wikipedia, it would be a good thing to greet people instead of welcoming them with threatening underlined phrases. Second: I tell and I repeat that I do not use any bots: I have copied the data to Excel and, after having arranged and checked, them I copy them not automatically but manually; if you don't believe it this is the link to the worksheet. Third, since I do not know the Danish language, instead of wasting time explaining things that I could not understand, could you please correct a few entries yourself and then send me the link with the corrections, as is done in all the Wikipedia of the world? Thank you. --Discanto (diskussion) 5. maj 2019, 11:53 (CEST)
- Kopi slut. --Madglad (diskussion) 5. maj 2019, 12:14 (CEST)
- Jeg skriver på dansk på dawiki. Da du redigerer på dawiki, må jeg formode at du forstår dansk. Ellers må du du jo bruge en oversættelsesmaskine.
- Om du bruger en bot eller agerer menneskelig robot, er resultatet det samme, en masse reelt indholdsløse, copy-paste-redigerede artikler.
- Ud over den påpegede grammatiske fejl, vil jeg påpege at jurisdiktion åbenbart betyder noget andet på dansk end på italiensk. Og formuleringen dårlig, da det ikke kan ses, om "dets" henviser til byen eller kommunen. Hvis jurisdiktion henviser til arealet, er der ingen grund til at skrive det to gange i sætningen.
- --Madglad (diskussion) 5. maj 2019, 12:30 (CEST)
- @Madglad: I have already told you that I do not know Danish and that it is useless to explain to me the differences between the two languages. Much more useful if instead you take an entry, make the appropriate corrections and finally link them to me. At that point I rectify what I write based on your instructions because, if you allow me, neither to me even like writing nonsense, especially in the house of others. Finally, please also note that the articles have already been audited on April 26th by another user and consequently I was sure they were okay. But now you're telling me no.
- As for the first problem: you continue to insist that I operate as a bot. So if I write the entry on Word, I check the data and then copy and paste it, for your opinion this is the same as what a stupid bot does? But explain to me, do you care more that the articles are written one every 5 minutes maybe with wrong data or that they are correct even if written 3 in a minute? And therefore: do you care more about the form or substance? If so, I think it is perhaps important to hear the opinion of some other user. --Discanto (diskussion) 5. maj 2019, 13:49 (CEST)
- Se rettelserne på Perdasdefogu, så du kan forbedre de små artikler. —Arne (Amjaabc) (diskussion) 5. maj 2019, 18:22 (CEST)
Nabokommuner
[rediger kildetekst]Hi. Your edits with "+nabokommuner" have an error. You use "ve" instead of the Danish word "og" (meaning "and"). --Kartebolle (Dipsacus fullonum) (diskussion) 29. maj 2019, 12:06 (CEST)
- Ok @Dipsacus fullonum: many thanks for the warning. --Discanto (diskussion) 29. maj 2019, 12:10 (CEST)
Wrong Wikilinks
[rediger kildetekst]Hello Discanto
At least three articles you created - Tiana, Muros and Teulada - were wrongly interwiki-linked to Spanish cities of the same name. I have/will correct these. The situation is complex, since there were existing redlinks to these cities, so disambiguation is needed. I write "at least three", since I found these based on the WD-based coordinates throwing an error, since the coordinates are not within the map shown. It is possible that other wrong links did not trigger this error. Nis Jørgensen (diskussion) 30. jun 2019, 17:14 (CEST)
- Just found another problem - you are linking to Uri in some of your articles, which is a disambiguation page. You should know, since you created Uri (Italien). So please try to be a little bit more thorough. One small thing: You should write "<X> grænser op til <Y>, <Z> og <W>", rather than just "<X> grænser til <Y>, <Z> og <W>". Otherwise the articles look good (although their method of production is probably on the edge of what is allowed on dawiki without discussion at WP:Anmodning om botstatus). Nis Jørgensen (diskussion) 30. jun 2019, 17:30 (CEST)
- @NisJørgensen: Hello. I have re-checked all my articles and there should be no other errors. I am surprised that the checks initially made by other users did not show the grammatical error you indicated ("op til") and that I, not knowing the language, then reported in all the articles. In this regard, I ask you politely if you can ask some users to make the correction via bot. Remaining on the subject of bots, I have already had occasion to point out that I do not use bots therefore I do not know exactly what I should request at WP:Anmodning om botstatus. --Discanto (diskussion) 2. jul 2019, 01:29 (CEST)
- It was me who said that "grænser til" is OK before the use. I still say that it is OK. You can both say "grænser til" and "grænser op til" with the same meaning. I did check both in a dictionary (Den Danske Ordbog) and text examples. The expression "grænser til" is also used in many Wikipedia articles (like "Danmark ... grænser til Tyskland mod syd." in Danmark and many others). So there no need to change anything. --Kartebolle (Dipsacus fullonum) (diskussion) 2. jul 2019, 02:10 (CEST)
- I apologize for being too quick in labelling "grænse til" as being an error. I will still claim that it is an archaic form - which is hinted at in the dictionary mentioned, which lists "grænser til" as "metaphorical", while giving an example with "op til" for the direct meaning. An older much-cited dictionary Ordbog over det danske Sprog lists the two forms as synonyms.
- As for the bot-question: As I understand it, you are using a computer program to generate article text, which you are then manually uploading. On the surface, this is not against our policy. But since the last step is done without any review by a human who understands the text, it could be argued that it is against the spirit of the policy. Now, I am a pragmatist and a bit of an anarchist, so you have my full blessings - but mostly because your "bot" is wellbehaved. Nis Jørgensen (diskussion) 2. jul 2019, 23:12 (CEST)
- It was me who said that "grænser til" is OK before the use. I still say that it is OK. You can both say "grænser til" and "grænser op til" with the same meaning. I did check both in a dictionary (Den Danske Ordbog) and text examples. The expression "grænser til" is also used in many Wikipedia articles (like "Danmark ... grænser til Tyskland mod syd." in Danmark and many others). So there no need to change anything. --Kartebolle (Dipsacus fullonum) (diskussion) 2. jul 2019, 02:10 (CEST)
- @NisJørgensen: Hello. I have re-checked all my articles and there should be no other errors. I am surprised that the checks initially made by other users did not show the grammatical error you indicated ("op til") and that I, not knowing the language, then reported in all the articles. In this regard, I ask you politely if you can ask some users to make the correction via bot. Remaining on the subject of bots, I have already had occasion to point out that I do not use bots therefore I do not know exactly what I should request at WP:Anmodning om botstatus. --Discanto (diskussion) 2. jul 2019, 01:29 (CEST)