Open main menu

User talk:GerardM

About this board

Previous discussion was archived at User talk:GerardM/Archive 1 on 2015-08-10.

Aridd (talkcontribs)

Hi. Just to explain why I reverted your change to the Julius Chan page: He's not actually Prime Minister yet. Peter O'Neill has announced he's going to resign, but he has not yet formally resigned. He has not yet presented his resignation formally to the Governor-General.

Reply to "Julius Chan"

Help merging/combing two data entries.

3
Thsmi002 (talkcontribs)

Hello! I saw you helped merge another entry I was involved with a few weeks back and was hoping you could help with this other one. Q21506548 and Q40888852 seem connected, the latter being categorized as an article written, in part, by Wharton Brown. Thank you!

GerardM (talkcontribs)

Hoi,

One is the person the other an article.. I referred the article to the person. Thanks, ~~~~

Thsmi002 (talkcontribs)

Ahh good catch. Thank you!

Reply to "Help merging/combing two data entries."
Pintoch (talkcontribs)

Please stop using SourceMD right now. Given the issues reported by Gamaliel, ArthurPSmith and Sic19 and following the warning I gave you two weeks ago, I am reverting all the batches that you submit. If you keep submitting batches, I will have to block your account.

GerardM (talkcontribs)

I am in contact with others on the use of SourceMD and the potential issues. The way I submit jobs is different and it should now be good. What I did was have jobs with 10/15 items. There were several batches that could run concurrently.

That is no longer what I do. I run one job and leave plenty of time for successive jobs.

NB thank you for threatening and not talking.

Pintoch (talkcontribs)

Hi GerardM,

I don't see any evidence that the problem has been resolved, neither at WD:AN nor at Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Source_MetaData. But of course if any of the users mentioned above can confirm that they are happy with your new batches, I will not undo the next ones.

Cheers!

GerardM (talkcontribs)

So you cannot undo the damage you did?

Pintoch (talkcontribs)

As I explained before, I will undo all your sourcemd batches until I get the confirmation from User:Gamaliel, User:ArthurPSmith or User:Sic19 that they are happy with your new batches. Let me know if anything is unclear!

GerardM (talkcontribs)

You did not explain. You TOLD me, quite a difference. Now HOW are they going to be happy with new batches when you destroy them on sight?

Pintoch (talkcontribs)

Hi Gerard,

You have run multiple jobs since my warning, that you have clearly ignored. If you have indeed fixed your practices, the batches you have run for the last two weeks should be sufficient for other users to evaluate if the issue was resolved. There are 17 of them.

So I am going to keep undoing new batches until I see evidence from others that they are satisfied with these 17 batches. The latest comments of ArthurPSmith and Daniel Mietchen on 14 March seem to indicate that the problem has not been resolved.

Cheers.

GerardM (talkcontribs)

For now I will run single item runs,. You may ask anyone, this should be no problem.

Pintoch (talkcontribs)

Hi GerardM,

Again, please do not use sourcemd at all until others can confirm that they are happy with your use of the tool. This is my third warning before a block.

Cheers.

ArthurPSmith (talkcontribs)

I'm not sure on the timing here, but I would think that running one batch at a time should not cause trouble. However, I'm not terribly familiar with SourceMD or how this has been working. Certainly everybody should avoid multiple simultaneous batches.

GerardM (talkcontribs)

For me it is important to at least run a job for a single item.. better would be to run ingle jobs with multiple related (co-authors)

Pintoch (talkcontribs)

Great! So let's say for now you only run jobs for single items, only one at a time and leaving plenty of time between each batch. And of course stop if anyone is not happy with that.

GerardM (talkcontribs)

"for now" is an undetermined period of time. For now that is fine. However, it is clear that items in the same batch should not interfere with each others. When I run individual jobs, they will be in different fields of science and consequently not interfere. For longer, there is an entry in the management system for this problem, this problem does interfere with a genuine use case so for now it is fine, it is not for ever.

Reply to "Stop using SourceMD right now"
Succu (talkcontribs)

Please add the parent taxon.

GerardM (talkcontribs)

Remember this is a Wiki. The information about these species may be found on en.wp. There is no genus and it is for the person who wants to to add the upper structures. I do not have to.

Reply to "Xxx rathbunae"
Tagishsimon (talkcontribs)

I spend a lot of time adding new items for en wikipedia articles on humans. To do so, it is necessary to search for items having the same name. Pretty much all such searches will pull up one or several ORCID person items, or CBDB person items, since these have been added in tens and hundreds of thousands. Because these have no descriptions, it is necessary to waste time inspecting each of them to find out they are not the footballer/politician/whatever that I'm searching for. Adding descriptions including the ORCID ID provides a means of disambiguating this item from that item, within the search results, without having to waste time calling up the full item. For the majority of ORCID items, ORCID is the only available property; for CBDB, the dynasty & CBDB ID. Clearly this is more useful than having a blank description. Clearly, also it's suboptimal and we live in hope that eventually better descriptions will be added.


You could always improve the description rather than being a griefer, Gerard. I mean, really, grow up.

GerardM (talkcontribs)

What you do is of hardly any relevance because it does English only. When you were to grow up, you would realise that most of those edits are about people without a label of researcher.. Something that is of more relevance than what you do.

I do not mess with descriptions because they are largely redundant in the first place. I do not need BLP violations to disambiguate.

Tagishsimon (talkcontribs)

They're only "redundant" in your eyes because you do not have a dependency on them. They are clearly not redundant if one wishes to be able to disambiguate, in a search, one person from another. As normal, your argument makes no sense, even assuming good faith - which, let's be honest, is difficult given your history.


The solution to a description you do not like is always in your hands - to improve it. Instead you choose to edit war in a destructive fashion. I feel very sorry for you, gerard. you must be very sad.

GerardM (talkcontribs)

Given "your history" is another personal attack.. Good. When you want to disambiguate, I have the same data as you and I do not need your BLP violations to know that a researcher is a researcher. A statement that you do not add because of what?

In your attitude, the way you treat people, there is no good faith apparent.

Tagishsimon (talkcontribs)

And as to "BLP violation", the person in question makes the claim she is a researcher. Please specify exactly the nature of the BLP violation of which you speak or, as per your Ghana nonsense, have to courage to admit that you are making trouble for no reason whatsoever, and then reflect on that.

GerardM (talkcontribs)

Have the decency to admit that you destroyed the work I did. Have the decency to admit that your approach is substandard because you could determine in the data in what parliament a person was participating.

Tagishsimon (talkcontribs)

As normal, if you could actually point to any work you did which I destoyed, that would be helpful. Until you do, I will continue to make the fair assumption that you are causing trouble for the sake of causing trouble.

GerardM (talkcontribs)

As I indicated before, I have added many African politicians and I noticed that my statements for MP were removed. This is EXACTLY why I complained to you about your ill considered suggestions about the position of a MP. It is NOT limited to one term, it is a continuous set of time where elections are included. Your approach is substandard even though some think it acceptable.

Tagishsimon (talkcontribs)

First, the suggestion that "my statements for MP were removed" does not hold much water. Right now there are 168 items with Q21290881 ... there simply has not been a programme of removal of P39 statements (although I grant Q21290881 has been removed from a small handful of MPs).

https://query.wikidata.org/#SELECT%20%3Fitem%20%3FitemLabel%20WHERE%20%0A%7B%0A%20%20%3Fitem%20wdt%3AP39%20wd%3AQ21290881%20.%0A%20%20SERVICE%20wikibase%3Alabel%20%7B%20bd%3AserviceParam%20wikibase%3Alanguage%20%22%5BAUTO_LANGUAGE%5D%2Cen%22.%20%7D%0A%7D

In reality, gerard. *you* have a problem - or at least say you have a problem - with the way that Ghanaian MPs and all UK MP positions are structured. Others do not, and clearly it is not "ill-considered" given that the representation of UK MPs, which uses the per-term position item, is the most fully developed treatment wikidata has, now spanning 2019 back to about 1300. It works well. There is a world of difference between "gerard does not like it" and "ill-considered". And there's a venue for a discussion about this - every politician - which you could avail yourself of if this was other than a dull kick tagishsimon exercise.

I remind you that the approach I took was that sprearheaded by the Ghanaian team for which my work was done. They appear perfectly content; have had their first ediathon, and plan two more. In other words, eveyone involved in Ghanaian MPs except you seems well content with the current situation.

You'll agree with me that on the en wiki Ghanaian page, you alleged all sorts of crap which you're unable or unwilling to back up, such as nonsense about duplication of constituencies &c. The best you can do is carp about use of a different form of position statement. That's very poor. As normal, clearly it is within your capabilities to get with the programme and utilise what is the consensus approach for Ghanaian MP position statements. Or you can remain the dog in the manger, and gnaw your bone. If so, I hope it comforts you.

GerardM (talkcontribs)
Tagishsimon (talkcontribs)

I have not removed district statements, so stop with your carping about that. If you want to add districts, as I have said before, knock yourself out. My disinterest in doing what you think I should be doing is your problem, not mine. I'm not interested in using en wiki as a source for districts for the constituencies I added - and few of them are in that list, which iirc is ~2012, since these are constituencies creted for the 2016 election. Please try to get that into your obtuse head.

I think your have an ownership issue. It's great that you did some work before I did. That does not make you a king.

I'm not much interested in your tone policing, either. That, I think is what started this whole problem.

GerardM (talkcontribs)

You coming along does not mean that you can destroy the work that went before you particularly when it is pointed out to you and particularly when your approach is still substandard.

Given that you are doing the insulting and are not interested in reflecting on this, it means that it is your problem.

Tagishsimon (talkcontribs)

Zzzzz. I have not destroyed anything. You have yet to provide a single diff backing up your mad assertion.

And we've been through the 'substandard' business. You not liking an approach which other do like does not make it substandard. It just makes you, as I noted, a dog in a manger. (You can google that if you don't understand what it means)

Your best offer is that I use as a source a list which does not contain constituencies created for the 2016 election. That's just stupid. And mad. Mad and stupid.

Reply to "Your revert"
Tagishsimon (talkcontribs)

I spend a lot of time adding new items for en wikipedia articles on humans. To do so, it is necessary to search for items having the same name. Pretty much all such searches will pull up one or several ORCID person items, or CBDB person items, since these have been added in tens and hundreds of thousands. Because these have no descriptions, it is necessary to waste time inspecting each of them to find out they are not the footballer/politician/whatever that I'm searching for. Adding descriptions including the ORCID ID provides a means of disambiguating this item from that item, within the search results, without having to waste time calling up the full item. For the majority of ORCID items, ORCID is the only available property; for CBDB, the dynasty & CBDB ID. Clearly this is more useful than having a blank description. Clearly, also it's suboptimal and we live in hope that eventually better descriptions will be added.

People are not being "reduced to a number". Rather, as pointed out above, searches are being made more productive. Please cease your griefing, gerard; we know it extends, in my case, to twitter, en wikipedia, and here. Your campaign against me belittles you and is beneath contempt.

GerardM (talkcontribs)

Your notion that it is personal is not justified. To be honest, I could not care less who adds such descriptions. Where you use words like "contempt", it is more about your perception than my intention. It does not change one iota about the point being raised. Reducing a person to a number for disambiguation purposes can be done differently, there are existing methods that are known . This is NOT acceptable. and neither is it that you make this personal.

Reply to "Your revert"
Tagishsimon (talkcontribs)

I spend a lot of time adding new items for en wikipedia articles on humans. To do so, it is necessary to search for items having the same name. Pretty much all such searches will pull up one or several ORCID person items, or CBDB person items, since these have been added in tens and hundreds of thousands. Because these have no descriptions, it is necessary to waste time inspecting each of them to find out they are not the footballer/politician/whatever that I'm searching for. Adding descriptions including the ORCID ID provides a means of disambiguating this item from that item, within the search results, without having to waste time calling up the full item. For the majority of ORCID items, ORCID is the only available property; for CBDB, the dynasty & CBDB ID. Clearly this is more useful than having a blank description. Clearly, also it's suboptimal and we live in hope that eventually better descriptions will be added.


Please read and try to understand the above. If you wish to provide improved descriptions that would be great. Blanking the descriptions I have added, for the reasons specified above, is not acceptable.

GerardM (talkcontribs)

No, it is not acceptable. You can not reduce a person to a number. Also there are automated descriptions.. In all the effort on English only descriptions, you forget all these other languages, you do not add statements like researcher or whatever. So no quite contrary what you write your POV is not acceptable if only because they are living persons.

Reply to "Your reverts"
Tagishsimon (talkcontribs)

I spend a lot of time adding new items for en wikipedia articles on humans. To do so, it is necessary to search for items having the same name. Pretty much all such searches will pull up one or several ORCID person items, or CBDB person items, since these have been added in tens and hundreds of thousands. Because these have no descriptions, it is necessary to waste time inspecting each of them to find out they are not the footballer/politician/whatever that I'm searching for. Adding descriptions including the ORCID ID provides a means of disambiguating this item from that item, within the search results, without having to waste time calling up the full item. For the majority of ORCID items, ORCID is the only available property; for CBDB, the dynasty & CBDB ID. Clearly this is more useful than having a blank description. Clearly, also it's suboptimal and we live in hope that eventually better descriptions will be added.

GerardM (talkcontribs)

Please consider what is written in the chat. Your approach is not acceptable.

Reply to "Your revert"
Tagishsimon (talkcontribs)

It would be great of you could get off my case and stop being a griefer, Gerard.

I spend a lot of time adding new items for en wikipedia articles on humans. To do so, it is necessary to search for items having the same name. Pretty much all such searches will pull up one or several ORCID person items. Because these have no descriptions, it is necessary to waste time inspecting each of them to find out they are not the footballer/politician/whatever that you're searchig for. Adding descriptions including the ORCID ID provides a means of disambiguating this item from that item, without having to waste time calling up the full item. Clearly this is more useful than having a blank description. I should note, we all know that the form of description being added is suboptimal. If you want to replace the description WITH A BETTER DESCRIPTION that would be fine. But blanking the description out of some sort of petulance does not cut it. Please do not revert such edits; they are done with a useful purpose.

GerardM (talkcontribs)

Hell no. I understand why you add these descriptions and I completely disagree with this practice. A person is not to be identified with an identifier, not ORCID or any other. The solution that works splendidly is in place, it works for me and it is in automated descriptions.

So yes, there are better descriptions obviating the nonsense that you put in place.

GerardM (talkcontribs)

Given my position on this, I added this as a subject on the chat.

Reply to "Your reverts"
Taketa (talkcontribs)

Hoi Gerard,


deze heb je dubbel aangemaakt Q19816340 en Q54932440 . Kun jij dit even checken en weer recht zetten. Bij voorbaat dank.


Met vriendelijke groet

Reply to "Dubbel"
Return to the user page of "GerardM".