User talk:GerardM/Archive 1

Welcome to Wikidata, GerardM!

Wikidata is a free knowledge base that you can edit! It can be read and edited by humans and machines alike and you can go to any item page now and add to this ever-growing database!

Need some help getting started? Here are some pages you can familiarize yourself with:

• Introduction – An introduction to the project.
• Wikidata tours – Interactive tutorials to show you how Wikidata works.
• Community portal – The portal for community members.
• User options – including the 'Babel' extension, to set your language preferences.
• Contents – The main help page for editing and using the site.
• Project chat – Discussions about the project.
• Tools – A collection of user-developed tools to allow for easier completion of some tasks.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask on Project chat. If you want to try out editing, you can use the sandbox to try. Once again, welcome, and I hope you quickly feel comfortable here, and become an active editor for Wikidata.

Best regards!

--Stryn (talk) 09:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Constraint violations/P106

Hoi, Can you explain Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P106 to me... I am adding values you consider a constraint violation ...

That does not feel good to me..

Thanks, Gerard

• Usually report`s data have one day time lag with actual data. For details see the report`s header. If you fix item more than two days ago please give a link to the problematic item. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 19:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• • I removed items from your list .. they reappear. My point is very much why are you considering such constraints .. technically there are no constraints so what gives. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• No need remove items from list, simple correct the problem: [1]. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• From my perspective, the list is the problem. GerardM (talk) 12:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC on Wikidata's primary sorting property

You recently participated in a deletion discussion for P107 - main type (GND). The discussion has been closed, as it is clear that a resolution won't come from PfD, and an RfC has been opened on the matter at Wikidata:Requests for comment/Primary sorting property. You are invited to participate there. Please note that this is a mass delivered message, and that I will not see any replies you leave on this page.

Yours, Sven Manguard Wha? 18:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

"head of state"

I think you've been misusing the head of state (P35) property. The property was created with the intention that the target of the property be the head of state, not the subject. For example, to say that Orhan (Q133168) was the head of state of Ottoman dynasty (Q193383), you would add the statement to Ottoman dynasty (Q193383), not to Orhan (Q133168). --Yair rand (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

in that case it is redundant to say that Barack Obama holds the office of president of the Unites States because that is implied by the head of state on the United States right ? The problem is that the properties as I know them do not fit historic situations. They are not political offices. GerardM (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

It is redundant, but I'm pretty sure people do it anyways. (I would really think of the head of state position being redundant rather than the office held: President of the United States being redundant, as the latter seems more generally informative.)

I'm not sure what you mean by them not being political offices. --Yair rand (talk) 20:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Bot

Hello

No - I am not a bot. I am quite experienced edtor with more than 150k edits on pl.wiki (first place on pl.wiki). As you can see I am making series of about 75 pages per serie (on every page I add "person"/"male"/. Its because my browser can handle only so much pages from wikidata. So no - I am not bot.

If you need any help with some polish-language editor I am happy to help. PMG (talk) 21:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

RFC on reusing stuff from DBpedia

I have been looking at DBpedia, trying to see what we can reuse from them, and I have started an RFC with my observations.

As you have commented on this in the past I thought you might want to contribute something there. Filceolaire (talk) 09:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I am grateful for your effort, it is a great start for a conversation :) GerardM (talk) 09:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: Mass merge

Hello, GerardM. You have new messages at Ricordisamoa's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Ricordisamoa 21:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

script example

python harvest_template.py -family:wikipedia -lang:en -transcludes:"IMSLP" -template:"IMSLP" -namespace:0 1 P839

python pwb.py harvest_template.py -family:wikipedia -lang:en -transcludes:"Infobox Officeholder" -template:"Infobox Officeholder" -namespace:0 party p102

Hi Gerard!

I will contact you later. Regards לערי ריינהארט (talk) 08:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I need to hurry. I kindly ask you to support internationalization attempts for authority control availability at various language communities. Please see Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control where I proposed the addition of the Dutch, the Flemish and other libriries / catalogs.

Yesterday we celebrated the tenth year anniversary of the first Wikipedian meeting held in Munich where Jimbo participated. See de:project:München and the "Ergebnisse" (results). There have been people from WikiMedia Germany and I told them about my investigations / proposals / work.

FYI: a short link to my page https://www.wikidata.org/?curid=16717382# and a short link to my personal clone of Magnus Manske's tool https://www.wikidata.org/?curid=16710847#

Do you know librarians from other language communities then German and English interested in AC issues?

Best regards לערי ריינהארט (talk)

Please support the property proposals VLACC identifier and NTA (Netherlands) identifier at the url from above. Please inform on the Dutch Wikidata:De kroeg about these proposals. Thanks in advance! לערי ריינהארט (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Banatswabian (Q806124) de:Banatschwäbisch

Dear Gerard; Can you please set the correct properties for Banatswabian (Q806124) linked to de:Banatschwäbisch. I like to work on de:Liste donauschwäbischer Persönlichkeiten linked to Q1862098. Thanks in advance! לערי ריינהארט (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

P107

>> Hoi, Given that main type GND has been deprecated.. could you stop running "Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P39" please ?

Hi, bot updates reports using settings from constraint templates. If migration from P107 is completed then replace P107 based constraint template to another based on new type mechanism constraint template. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Alternative to the ancestor property proposal

Hi Gerard, could you please check if the proposal relative+type of kinship could be used to represent ancestors? We have many proposals regarding different family degrees (son-in-law, grandfather, etc), so if we could represent them all with 2 generic properties it would be much easier.--Micru (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, relative could do when the qualifier "ancestor" is used in combination. GerardM (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Great, just a little clarification, it would be something like "relative=>item of the person", with qualifier "type of kinship=>ancestor (Q402152)".--Micru (talk) 13:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, that would work for me. GerardM (talk) 13:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Sitelinks to Commons

Hi Gerard, I don't know if you're aware of the recent closure of the Commons links RfC, but my understanding is that we are now only meant to add same-namespace links, not cross-namespace links like the ones you've added here and [2] for instance. Would you agree? --Avenue (talk) 00:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Hoi, I do so totally disagree with that.. There is no purpose in linking in this way. It does not add anything. Categories are bad as it is anyway. GerardM (talk) 05:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

From your reaction I gather you weren't aware of the RfC outcome. It wasn't my favourite option either, or that of many others, but it may be the best we can do with the current software. Anyway it has only been approved as an interim solution, so I can live with that. --Avenue (talk) 09:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not intend to live with it. I commented on the place of the RFC.. If it does not serve a purpose and is demonstrably in the way, it should move. GerardM (talk) 09:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Wrong item links

Hi Gerard. I'm just going through the list of items linking to the disambiguation page Male (Q360210). I came across several items where you have linked this instead of male (Q6581097) (e.g. Jan van der Zwaag (Q2787041), George Thuo (Q5545223), Khalid ibn Yazid (Q4165518)). Such mistakes can happen, and in this case it's not tragic at all, as it's easy to fix and that task I'm doing has to be done anyway (because it's a common type of vandalism to replace someone's sex). However, if you're mixing up items here, you may do so elsewhere, too, and maybe those other cases are not that obvious. So I'd like to remind you to check whether you are linking the right item, in order not to create junk data. That said, I want to thank you for your work for, with and around Wikidata, and wish you a nice day. --YMS (talk) 12:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Hoi YMS,I am doing thousands of edits and adding male, female and human I do a lot. I know I make mistakes but I hope it is not more than what can be expected of manual input. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

In case you don't know (though I guess you do, as you seem to be quite up-to-date in the Wikidata environment, judging from your blog): Mistakes like these in those very basic properties can be reduced by using a tool like Magnus Manske's "wikidata useful" and its derivates (see WD:Tools), but of course, they will never come down to zero as long as real people work here. That's absolutely okay, and I didn't mean to complain, just avoid that people add stuff blindly. --YMS (talk) 13:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

RfA

Hoi Gerard,

ik heb net je RfA als niet succesvol afgesloten. Dat was helaas niet voldoende steun. Ik hoop dat als je volgende keer misschien na enkele maanden zal proberen, met duidelijke aanwijzing welke taken van administrator lijken van je aantrekkelijk, de volgende RfA zal succesvol zijn. Veel succes.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

ELSTAT geographical code (P1116)

Just created ELSTAT geographical code (P1116). Thank you for participating in the discussion. --Tobias1984 (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

ice hockey players

Ice hockey player is not a field of work (P101) but an occupation (P106). There may be a significant number of errors that I think you need to correct. --Izno (talk) 14:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I asked Amir to help me out on this one.. It is on his list. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 15:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

language of humans

Hi, you created lots of claims using language of work or name (P407) for humans. However, the documentaion says this property should only be used for work (Q386724). Could you please correct this mistakes or explain me why they are valid in this scope? -- Bene* ^t_a^l_k 11:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

How else do I indicate that a person speaks that language ? GerardM (talk) 11:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

What about native language (P103)? It took me two klicks to find it. Just go to Wikidata:List of properties, then choose Person and there it is. -- Bene* ^t_a^l_k 12:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Native language is not what I need. What I need is the ability to speak a language. GerardM (talk) 12:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, then the property you need does not exist yet. However, this does not mean you can use an invalid property instead. So please fix this problem and then propose a new property. -- Bene* ^t_a^l_k 12:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

It is !@#$ to have different properties that indicate exactly the same thing. language has a meaning in a context but it is still the same language. No thanks, GerardM (talk) 13:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not say that the current state is the best but even then you still have to propose a change of the documentation. Maybe there are some community members who disagree with you. Just editing the way you think is right while ignoring the documentation is not the way to go. -- Bene* ^t_a^l_k 15:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I hardly care about documentation since I was told to go away when I asked for clarification and if not the end of things that have to do with documentation. I do not mind to start this discussion, I hope you will indicate where. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Your admin status

Hello. I'm a steward. A new policy regarding the removal of "advanced rights" (administrator, bureaucrat, etc.) was adopted by community consensus recently. According to this policy, the stewards are reviewing administrators' activity on wikis with no inactivity policy.

You meet the inactivity criteria (no edits and no log actions for 2 years) on yiwiktionary, where you are an administrator. Since yiwiktionary does not have its own administrators' rights review process, the global one applies.

If you want to keep your rights, you should inform the community of the wiki about the fact that the stewards have sent you this information about your inactivity. If the community has a discussion about it and then wants you to keep your rights, please contact the stewards at m:Stewards' noticeboard, and link to the discussion of the local community, where they express their wish to continue to maintain the rights, and demonstrate a continued requirement to maintain these rights.

We stewards will evaluate the responses. If there is no response at all after approximately one month, we will proceed to remove your administrative rights. In cases of doubt, we will evaluate the responses and will refer a decision back to the local community for their comment and review. If you have any questions, please contact us on m:Stewards' noticeboard.

Best regards, Rschen7754 05:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Cactaceae

Hi GerardM, was this vandalism or whats your explanation? --Succu (talk) 14:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

We have "parent taxons" and there can be only one. GerardM (talk) 14:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

This is not correct. Look at the sources. --Succu (talk) 14:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, so what are you telling me, that the system of taxonomy is wrong or that we implement taxonomy wrong. GerardM (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm telling you that your opinion is wrong in both cases. Taxonomy is not static. Over time Cactaceae were placed in different orders. Thats exactly what is expressed. --Succu (talk) 14:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

As it is, the information is wrong. If you want to make your point, add ranks. GerardM (talk) 14:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Caryophyllales are marked as prefered. You removed this along with five sources too! --Succu (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Succu is right. It is required to express alternative taxonomic visions. Here, this was even perfectly sourced and a preferred value is given. This might not be the case everywhere and, nonetheless, alternative parents are feasible to be added and very mandatory.  — Felix Reimann (talk) 15:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Thx for your email, but if you want to tell me something tell it here. And yes: I regard removing a lot of sourced statements of a showcase item as an act of vandalism. BTW: You are simply a wikidata user, nothing else. --Succu (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Cactaceae preferred values are now considered. The information does now look better. When you start a conversation and use the word "vandalism", you raise the temperature without need. I am a Wikidata user, and I am proud of it. As far as your "nothing else" is concerned: fine by me, whatever. GerardM (talk) 12:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Reasonators taxonomy view is not correct. Preferred parent taxon of Caryophyllales (Q21808) is core eudicots (Q869087). --Succu (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Reasonator does not have an opinion except for what is expressed by Wikidata. If it does not show the correct thing from a taxonomic point of view, there is some work for you to do. GerardM (talk) 08:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

„...shows a lack of understanding of what nomenclature is and, how it is implemented in Wikidata” - Without words. If you want to discuss something you'll find me at the WikiProject Taxonomy. Bye --Succu (talk) 07:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

You do the evil you accuse me off; not responding where the discussion is. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 09:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Louvre pirramid as a castle (Q23413)

Hi Gerard, categories are not really reliable, I just saw you added

⟨ Louvre Pyramid (Q13397)    ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ castle (Q23413)    ⟩

, which is not really the case :) Using Autolist (I assume) deserves visual check. TomT0m ^(talk) 13:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Even when I had looked at it. I would have missed it. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 16:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

diff

Why did you remove this (sourced!) statement? The subgenus has the same name as it's parent genus. Quite typical....  — Felix Reimann (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

it showed as a self reference while I was editing. GerardM (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, this does not fit. A species has a name that is in several parts. Here it is the genus and the identifier for the species. Do you imply that the source you refer to has the genus and the subgenus as the same name ? GerardM (talk) 07:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

For Chimarra as subgenus name see ITIS-TSN 598745, for Chimarra as genus name see ITIS-TSN 115273. So please revert your removal. --Succu (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

It took you more effort to write this message.. You do not respond to my queries, so why should I ? GerardM (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Bot / flooder

Hi there! Please get a bot/flooder flag, thank you! Palosirkka (talk) 17:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

sorry but I do not use bot software. GerardM (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You are using Widar for masscreating new items. This causes some problems. --Succu (talk) 22:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I reported some of your errors using Widar at Wikidata:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#flood flag. You have made the exact same three errors again.[3][4][5]. Your change to Category:George Polk Award recipients (Q6985341) is also dubious, as it appears it is occasionally given to an organisation. John Vandenberg (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata item creator

For safety, please DO NOT use it until 24 hrs passed. There're now dispatch issues while using it quickly. See User_talk:GZWDer#Dispatch_Issues for more info.--GZWDer (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Systemic bias

Wikidata:Database_reports/Constraint_violations/P27#Types_statistics is quite "funny", shows our current coverage of people by (kind of) country. --Nemo 21:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Elections vs. candidates

Hi GerardM, you seem to be misusing candidate (P726), causing lots of new constraint violations. According to the property documentation, this property is meant to point from an election to a candidate, not the other way around. LaddΩ chat ;) 22:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@Laddo In the Indian elections, people are chosen to the Lok Sabha from a electoral district. Consequently candidates are candidate for one seat that is directly coupled to the electoral district not the election. By adding these people on a personal level to the election, I can query them. I can show who the candidates are. Proof is in the pudding. GerardM (talk) 06:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Then please describe that usage on the property talk page. We cannot randomly pick any property and use it for whatever, otherwise WD will become chaos. LaddΩ chat ;) 20:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Dexbot at Adrianne Wadewitz

Any ideas why Dexbot (talk • contribs • logs) was making those odd changes to Q16438247? — Cirt (talk) 12:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind, I think I figured it out, — Cirt (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Human groups

Hi, your bot makes one error often. It adds human-related properties to items that represent human groups, for example: Boulting brothers (Q3181105), Katia and Maurice Krafft (Q1736578), Janet and Allan Ahlberg (Q3161932), Dick Hills and Sid Green (Q5273006). Could you make additional check in bot`s code: if item has has part(s) (P527) property then do not touch the item. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 11:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

(uninvited) Ivan A. Krestinin same with instance of (P31) group of humans (Q16334295)   

Hoi, in that case those groups are wrongly categorised. When an item is in "19** deaths" it should be only one person. RobotGMwikt (talk) 11:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Many Wikipedias do have multiple personal categories and/or multiple infoboxes in a lot of articles about couples, siblings, duos, etc. When importing such data into Wikidata, it should at least be checked whether an item is already classified a group of people here. Many such items don't have a has part(s) (P527) statement (as often there are no separate items for the individuals), so Ivan's suggestion alone won't work in many cases. When checking for group of humans (Q16334295), also check for its subclasses (and their subclasses, etc.). --YMS (talk) 12:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Wrong edit again. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 12:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

And again: [6], [7], [8]. Please stop adding wrong values and edit wars. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I had contact with Magnus and, I have a way to exclude specific items like "is a" "human group". It is not possible to check for something and its subclasses and subclasses. So what I will be excluding is CLAIM[31:5] or CLAIM[31:16334295] or claim[527] Thanks GerardM (talk) 21:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Please use any acceptable way that allows to stop creating invalid claims. The bot creates bad value again: [9]. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 06:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

subsets of subsets cannot be managed and are at best qualifiers. Thanks, RobotGMwikt (talk) 06:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Use has part(s) (P527) if used code can not handle instance of (P31) correctly. Or write code for instance of (P31) handling. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 07:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I now look for "consists of" CLAIM[31:5] or CLAIM[31:16334295] or claim[527] </nocode> I refer to sibling pairs and stuff. RobotGMwikt (talk) 08:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you check for NOCLAIM[31] if you set a P31 statement? If there is anything set already for P31, no other "is a" claim should be done by an automated tool without manually checking the Wikidata items and the source Wikipedia articles, as far as I can tell. --YMS (talk) 08:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Still quite some false positives. I just checked your edits from 12:00 to 12:30 and found three errors by only looking at the labels of the items: Executions during the Irish Civil War, Armenian victims of the Great Purge, David O. Selznick filmography. However, none of them had any of the statements we told you to watch for (they all didn't have any statements at all). So I think it's okay for a bot to put these statements. But if you're working with AutoList anyway (I'm not sure about this, as you also list some Pywikibot scripts on the bot's user page), at least looking at the labels before performing the action should be possible, I think. --YMS (talk) 13:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

[10]. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

this should be an instance of a group of people GerardM (talk) 13:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Again I had to revert a bunch of your edits, where you made humans out of groups that already had been tagged as such: Dylan and Cole Sprouse, Jedward, Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen, Camilla and Rebecca Rosso, plus another one (Delhi gang rape case) where any quick check should have shown without a doubt that it's not an item about a person. --YMS (talk) 08:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

When items like those Delhi gang rape case do not have an "instance of" I will certainly do them again.. GerardM (talk) 09:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

You should try not to, especially when working with your personal account, which implies in my eyes that you at least review your changes if made (semi)automatically. I reverted your last change on that item, too, as it is about the gang rape, not the rapers.

However, I see that cases like this are hard to spot using Wikidata data (as there is no Wikidata data, appart from labels, descriptions and maybe other statements that could indicate it's not a person). But at least for cases like the other four edits I gave: Please be more careful there. --YMS (talk) 10:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Map of classes

http://tools.wmflabs.org/wp-world/wikidata/superclasses.php?lang=en --Kolossos (talk) 20:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Removal of permissions re RobotGMwikt

Hi GerardM, I have started a discussion at Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Removal#RobotGMwikt to have your bot flag removed. John Vandenberg (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Arnold Pannartz and Konrad Sweynheim (Q777725) again

Concerning this diff: Those are articles abot two men, or, it could be argued, one printer (Q6500733). They also exist seperately as Arnold Pannartz (Q7220735) and Konrad Sweynheim (Q3687174). --HHill (talk) 07:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

They could be / should be a "list of humans".. RobotGMwikt (talk) 10:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Hm, User:TomT0m prefers duo (Q10648343), not very fitting either IMO. I still think brand name (Q168678) or printer (Q6500733) are more appropriate, cf. also http://d-nb.info/gnd/6145892-2. --HHill (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

'Printer" is an occupation and "legal name" is really odd. What is important to me is that the property that was used does not state what it is an instance of. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 14:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

For me Duo usually refers to singers, comedians or other performing artists. And yes, looking at the colophons Conradus Suueynheym Arnoldus Pannartzque is the name of an business association, to which Pietro Massimo probably supplied room and money, Giovanni Andrea Bussi (Q1525717) and others editing skills. This certainly isn't a list of humans, rather a company (Q783794). --HHill (talk) 15:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Quality improvement of our data

Hi Gerard, your blog-like monologue Quality is measurable was closed today. But this is an important topic which should be discussed openly. Maybe I and presumably John Vandenberg have a different approach on how we can improve the quality of wikidata. You, Magnus Manske, GZWDer and other people try it another way. Should we give it a try at Project chat? --Succu (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Adding a redirect (José Falcó Sanmartín (Q16874879))

Hi Gerard, do you think adding a redirect (José Falcó Sanmartín (Q16874879)) to José Falcó Sanmartín (Q3186274) is an improvement of our data quality? --Succu (talk) 21:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The item that was created came into being because an article that was not linked was identified as being about a human who died. As people recognised the new item as being about a known human, the article was merged. The result is that the item does refer to one more article and as such the data quality did improve. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

There are a lot of redirects out there. Maybe one solution is: API/UI throws an error if one of the sitelinks is an redirect while someone is adding a property value. --Succu (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Indian Members of Parliament

Hi Gerard, is there a list of the members of the sansad who have data items and who don't anywhere? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I can create a query for you that shows all the members of the Lok Sabha.. What it does NOT do is show the members of the 16th Lok Sabha. NB what is Sansad ? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 13:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! That is fine. Member of Lok Sabha is fine enough for a start. Sansad = Parliament of India [Official name]. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

http://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/autolist.html?q=CLAIM%5B31%3A5%5D%20AND%20CLAIM%5B39%3A16556694%5D :) GerardM (talk) 13:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! :) --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Q15623573

pigeon breed (Q15623573) should be deleted. Why? Please have a look at User talk:PigeonIP#Removing "pigeon breed" and Wikidata:Forum#wir haben schon lange nicht mehr über Tauben gesprochen ;) --PigeonIP (talk) 20:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

You are imho wrong. GerardM (talk) 06:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

You know, I am not, because "A pidgeon breed is recognised as being a specific description that a judge at an exhibition will look for when determining the quality of a specimen." is what fancy pigeon (Q5433715) is. --PigeonIP (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

What was this?

This obviously was a wrong edit, pointed out to me by Ash Crow on IRC. Please either explain why you thought that edit was right or promise to refrain from such mistakes in the future. Thanks.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: I noticed you used WIDAR there and would advise greater care.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I would like you to answer this rather than ignoring it, particularly since I would not want to have to ask you again about adding a false claim like this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I checked IRC, I found that you prefer to talk about me but not with me. I have explained this before and do not get any comments when I ask for them. GerardM (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Q16939012

Not sure what you intended with Greg Hughes (Q16939012)    here (previous label: Prakash Babanna Hukkeri). Is that the same person as Prakash Babanna Hukkeri (Q14922951)   ? John Vandenberg (talk) 08:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Hehe, we are talking. Yes, it is the same person. Sometimes search does not find the item with the exact label. Given that there was a link in the Wikipedia article, I found that it had an item after all. The intention of this item is to repurpose it. It has not been used for anything yet. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 09:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Q3881232

This is a movie, NOT a human! --Accurimbono (talk) 12:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Country of citizenship

Hi, why would you add Country of citizenship - United States to either Q13562718 or Q14274222? All interwikilink data and wikidata description fields point to the correct citizenship (Trinidad and Tobago / United Kingdom respectively). What are your edits based on? Wild guesses? --Headlocker (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Because they are "College women's soccer players in the United States" for instance.. the top category promises them to be USA. I do check if they have a nationality.. Only when they do not do they get one. GerardM (talk) 15:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

When you take the trouble to find fault and undo the edit, why not make it right? This prevent future issues. GerardM (talk) 15:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but why would playing soccer in the United states make anyone a US citizen? This category must certainly not be used as an indicator for citizenship?! Please stop this mass-editing based on pure speculation immediately. In the meantime I also corrected the citizenship of Q4725149. And these are just the items on my watchlist... --Headlocker (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Fair warning: Stop this vandalism immediately or I will have you blocked: For example neither Q2948589 nor Q2550874 are Brazilian, both just happen to have played for FC Santos in Brazil. This has absolutely nothing to do with citizenship. You are corrupting houndreds of data objects by adding nonsensical information, because you obviously can't grasp the difference between citizenship of and temporarily working in a certain country. This is completely ridiculous. --Headlocker (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I have found why this happened. I will revert for the category "Expatriate_footballers_in_Brazil". This category is erroneously part of "Brazilians by occupation". Thanks, GerardM (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Link

Are you sure? PMG (talk) 12:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Mens

Hoi Gerard, in deze edit uit februari zeg je dat dit boek een mens is. Mvg, Taketa (talk) 08:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Hoi Gerard, in deze dit van 1 mei, zegt je bot dat deze regering een mens is. Mvg, Taketa (talk) 08:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Hoi Gerard, ik ben bezig met man/vrouw indeling dus ik kom veel paginas tegen. Met deze edit zeg ke dat deze groep mensen een individueel mens zijn. Ik heb dit dubbelgechecked met sjoerddebruin om zeker te zijn dat idd human liefst gebruikt wordt voor een individu en niet voor een groep. Mvg, Taketa (talk) 08:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Het is een "wikimedia list article". GerardM (talk) 09:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

En hier zeg je dat een film een mens is. JurgenNL (talk) 13:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Deze is geen mens maar diens carrier. Mvg, Taketa (talk) 13:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

OmegaWiki

Hoi Gerard,

Weet jij hoe de WNF-baz(inn)en staan tegenover 'adoptie' van OmegaWiki binnen hun gelederen en met name hier op WikiData? "We" gebruiken volgens mij nagenoeg identieke programmeerhulpmiddelen (in slechter Nederlands: softwaretools ;-}). Hartelijke groeten uit een aangename provincie Arezzo  Klaas|Z4␟V:  13:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Annunciation (Q154326)

For the item Annunciation (Q154326) and this diff https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q154326&diff=88837861&oldid=88837843 the label is not not the common word, but the religious event ; first letter is capitalized. Regards Shonagon (talk) 08:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Q17283515

It was an item with the en label "Yanick Lahens". It was deleted as it did not pass the notability criteria at WD:N. It had no sitelinks, it was not linked to, it had no properties or references. Cheers. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

STOP

Please stop immediately removing information from Wikidata such as in https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2765944.

You completely removed the object from the tree of geographic features. Tamawashi (talk) 00:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

What I removed is the GND type.. It is obsolete and should be removed. GerardM (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

It is deprecated but by blindly removing it you remove information. Stop it! Tamawashi (talk) 01:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Gerard, could you simply replace "main type" with "instance of", please? --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 01:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I blocked you because before remove GND type he must replaced with propriety istance of, read [11] discussion page and rfd pages --Rippitippi (talk) 02:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Can you unblock me so that I can attend to things ? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 07:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The block expires in a little over one hour anyways. Have you stopped the script in question?--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes. GerardM (talk) 07:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I have one thread where the P107 is replaced by P31. Thanks for the helpful suggestion AmaryllisGardener. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 09:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

PS I also asked Amir if he can use his bot for this.. It is bad practice to have a solution and not implement it.. I have been removing P107 when I see it for a LONG time..

"It is bad practice to have a solution and not implement it" - Agreed. Me too. Hope in July they can all be eliminated. Tamawashi (talk) 02:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Alexius, Metropolitan of Moscow (Q717251)

Please, provide some sources for the claim that person from XIV century can be labeled as ophthalmologist (Q15059856). -- Vlsergey (talk) 10:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Try the category for it in Russian or English or so.. That is how it got there. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 10:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

It only means there are some mistakes and they need to be checked before mass-import such data into wikidata, needn't they? -- Vlsergey (talk) 13:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

occupation (P106) author (Q482980)

is silly when we have more exact writer (Q36180) or composer (Q36834). --Infovarius (talk) 09:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

When we know either one, we can drop the author.. when we know nothing, it is a huge step up. GerardM (talk) 10:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

So please do not general class add without checking about subclasses. --Infovarius (talk) 13:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

You assume that I know at that level about the subclasses.. I do not. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 13:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I came here to ask about the same thing (you've been adding occupation musician when there was already a claim with occupation and its target was a subclass of musician). If you don't have any way to take subclasses into account, please refrain from adding claims whose targets have a lot of subclasses that are usually used, thanks. --Mineo (talk) 21:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. There is no way to know if a person is a musician of any kind and there are more musicians that are not known as such than musicians who are known to have a subclass as well. Given where we are at the moment in the development of Wikidata, it is better to have some redundant information than not having information in the first place.. Once we have done enough on musicians, it is relatively easy to remove musician when a subclass exists as well. Another point is that many musicians are not only (whatever) but something else as well. This realisation is lost when you overly specify. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by saying "There is no way to know if a person is a musician of any kind". If you only know that a person is a musician but don't know what type of musician, go ahead and add a claim that (s)he is a musician, but the items I was talking about at Wikidata:Project_chat#Duplicate_information_with_occupation_and_subclasses were soundtrack composers and it's easy to find out what they did. (Now that you've already replied in the project chat, could we move this discussion there to not spread it over two places?) --Mineo (talk) 08:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

It is only easy to find out what kind of musician someone is when you work on individual items one at a time. When you harvest information there is no way to find out. GerardM (talk) 08:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Help

Hello, can you tell my how to use widar [1.3]? Thanks --محمد عصام (talk) 02:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Vreemd: ontvangen prijzen (P166): schrijver (Q36180)

Bedoel je dit echt? 'schrijver' is toch geen prijs die iemand kan ontvangen. Michiel1972 (talk) 09:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Nee, ik herstel het. GerardM (talk) 11:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Geen afb op Wikidata maar wel op Wikipedia

Hoi Gerard, hier had ik het vandaag over. Q16742294. Mvg, Taketa (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Andrzej Poczobut (Q515432) and Henryk Julian Gay (Q13382)

Hello. Excuse me, how do you know Andrzej Poczobut (Q515432) has Polish citizenship? Also, there is no need to add Polish citizenship for Henryk Julian Gay (Q13382), because he has already added citizenship of historical Polish state existing in that time. Tomasz Bladyniec (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Both these humans are recognised as Polish because of categories they are in. ..Polacy według profesji .. GerardM (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Andrzej Poczobut is Polish by ethnicity but citizen of Belarus. "Polacy według profesji" indicates his ethnicity, not citizenship. Juryj Humianiuk (Q3389748) - same situation. Please, stop adding citizenships of people when you are not sure about their citizenship. You are doing a lot of mistakes. Tomasz Bladyniec (talk) 10:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

religion or worldview (P140): Category:Anglican bishops (Q7112418)

Hello Gerard, you added religion or worldview (P140): Category:Anglican bishops (Q7112418) to many persons. I roolbacked some of them which was an error because it also remove your prior actions on the same items. I'll try to correct it. — Ayack (talk) 11:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I can easily fix the others.. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 11:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. But you can't add religion or worldview (P140): Anglicanism (Q6423963) either to these persons, sub-categories contain bishops who lived centuries before 1530 (the start of Anglicanism (Q6423963)). — Ayack (talk) 11:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

It is done on the basis of category "Anglican bishops" ... What point is there for them to be a bishop when they are not Anglican ? GerardM (talk) 11:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that Category:Bishops of Bath and Wells (for example) contains "Pre- and post- Reformation bishops of the Diocese of Bath and Wells". So catholic and anglican bishops... — Ayack (talk) 11:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Massenhaft falsche Eigenschaft "Mensch"

Hallo GerardM,

du scheinst derzeit massenhaft die Eigenschaft Mensch Property:P31: Q5 zu erstellen. Leider auch sehr oft falsch. z.B. bei Q841211 Q835869 Q245476 und weiteren. Bitte pass dein Script an.

--McSearch (talk) 13:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Often the information in a Wikipedia is not what you expect. For this reason I typically select everything that is not defined as an instance of something else.. You refer to two battles, they are not a battle and the ammunition is not ammunition. Given the huge numbers I process mistakes are made but as more items are defined for what they are, they will become less or of a different kind. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

[12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22] - Mvg, Taketa (talk) 15:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

humans as award

Hi, please stop adding Property:P31 Q618779 to humans! --Jklamo (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)--Jklamo (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

This diff is another one but for a treaty. 130.88.141.34 10:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC) Fixed for all of them. GerardM (talk) 10:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Revise all your edits ! (diff). --Movses (talk) 11:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the drama.. There are nine of them and, I am adding 2863 awards. This prevents them from going wrong a next time. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 11:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Wrong human tagging

Are you crazy to add "instance of"="human" to palace (diff) ??? Revise all your edits from Vidar\Game ! --Movses (talk) 22:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Hoi, no I am not crazy and it is not a palace, it is nothing. Consequently it occasionally goes wrong. Thanks, GerardM (talk)

Would you mind to be more attentive to the entities, please? It hurts sometimes and can be a reason for broken infoboxes. -- Vlsergey (talk) 11:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

This was an error on my side .. fixed. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 12:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

And today, at least two tennis championships (Q41520 and Q43605) were also given instance-of: human and gender: female. Most probably also an error :-) Could you check? Thanks! Fred Johansen (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Why should they be subclasses ? The logic for them being a tournament is the same as for a human.. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 19:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I know what you mean, I've seen the same thing in a few sports tournaments, and wondered about the same thing. But I guess it is due to them being a series of tournaments, not particular instances. (2014 Wimbledon Championships is a specific tournament which has been defined as 'instance-of' the (class or "series") Wimbledon Championships. However, that's an aside... My point was only to alert you to the problem, so that you may fix it if you have happened to assign 'instance-of' to other items which do not need them. Fred Johansen (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Point taken and, thanks GerardM (talk) 00:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you plan to revise your edits ? I see your errors again and again (diff_1, diff_2, diff_3). --Movses (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Belgium vs Netherlands

Hi. You have added country of citizenship (P27): Belgium (Q31) to a very large number of items. Unfortunately, many of these claims are incorrect and should be replaced by country of citizenship (P27): Netherlands (Q55)). The rate of mistakes is something like 15% so correcting this manually will waste a lot of time (I've began the process). Can you double check whatever code you used and run it again to catch these mistakes? Thanks, Pichpich (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

When categories indicate that someone is from Belgium, who am I to disagree ? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 16:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

NB Without specific examples where you think it is wrong, I cannot do much.

Just look at my recent edits and look for "remove claim"... In the most recent example, nl:Eduard Herman van Rees, I don't see any category that would mislead you into categorizing this man as Belgian. By the way, it is your responsibility to check that your code works properly. In this case, a quick spot check would have found instances where you get it wrong. Best, Pichpich (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Any progress on this issue? You can look at my contributions for even more examples and it should be sufficient to understand how this happened. I'm somewhat worried that you've already concluded that this is not your problem. 65.92.226.175 21:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Let me ask once again: are you going to do anything about the potentially hundreds of such mistakes your bot/scripts have made? You wrote the code so you're in the best position to fix things. Pichpich (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

You assume that I wrote code .. wrong. I have looked several times but I fail to see so far what I can do without breaking things at the other end. The problem is very much with byzantine and unpredictable category trees. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Then obviously, the solution is to go back and check manually (or rely on Magnus Manske's wikidata game). We're not talking about 1 in 2000 items: it's closer to 10-15% from what I've seen. Pichpich (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Really?

Staatsangehörigkeit

Wärest du bitte so aufmerksam und ordnest Personen, die vor dem 23. Mai 1949 gestorben sind, nicht auch noch die Staatsangehörigkeit Deutschland (= Bundesrepublik Deutschland) zu? Gleiches gilt übrigens für die überwiegende Mehrheit der vor dem 3. Oktober 1990 in der DDR verstorbenen Menschen... Danke, --PigeonIP (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Wie du an den oberen Kommentaren sehen kannst, interessiert es GerardM nicht wann, wer oder was richtig ist. Alle seine automatisierten (WIDAR) Ergänzungen gründen sich auf fragwürdigé Kategorien. --Succu (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Om eerlijk te zijn kunnen de kommentaren me wel wat schelen. Maar het is niet zo dat alles zonder meer is terug te draaien.. Ik kijk wel degelijk naar terugdraaiers.. niet constant maar toch en ik heb als gevolg daarvan veel aanpassingen gedaan.. Echter op een grondige manier.. dus niet van eentje terugdraaien en het onderliggende probleem laten voor wat het is.. Wanneer je denkt dat categorieen problemen hebben, dan heb je zeker niet naar templates gekeken... waarschijnlijk nog problematischer.. GerardM (talk) 15:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Wat zullen ze tijdens Wikimania in Londen zeggen over Wikidata?

In Wikidata:De kroeg gepost: Over drie weken komen Wikimedianen uit meer dan zestig landen bij elkaar in Londen. Gedurende drie dagen wisselen ze verhalen uit over wat er speelt op hun wiki project. Na Wikimania vliegen ze geïnspireerd terug naar huis, gevoed met verhalen uit de hele wereld. Welk verhaal over Wikidata zal de wereld overgaan?
Vanuit Nederland bezoeken zeker 16 mensen Wikimania. Met welk verhaal zullen zij naar Londen gaan? Schrijf mee aan Wikidata:Status van de wiki juli-augustus 2014 en help mee de tien punten op te sommen die Wikidata nu tot een geweldig, grandioos, voortreffelijk project hebben gemaakt. Leef je uit en benoem wat het voor jou fantastisch maakt om mee te werken aan Wikidata.
Nadat er tenminste tien punten zijn opgesomd die goed gaan met Wikidata kan op Wikidata talk:Status van de wiki juli-augustus 2014 overlegd worden over wat er minder goed gaat. Dan kan eventueel na die discussie een verbeterpunt toegevoegd worden aan de tien positieve punten op Wikidata:Status van de wiki juli-augustus 2014.
Dank je wel! In Nederland is het nu zomer en zouden we geneigd zijn dit een zomerrapport te noemen. Het is nu op het zuidelijk halfrond winter en vandaar de aanduiding van de maanden in plaats van het jaargetijde.Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Problem adding another language

Hello,

Can you help me? I'm trying to add in this page Q2269240 the link to Portuguese Wikipedia, but it says that "The link ptwiki:Ano letivo is already used by item Q915466".

Should I delete the item Q915466? Thiago90ap (talk) 03:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Please, answer me in my pt Wikipedia user page.

Cuban or not cuban, that is the question

Please, be more careful adding nationalities. None of these was cuban. 1, 2, 3.—Totemkin (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

It is "complicated". Thanks, GerardM (talk) 11:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes, yes, it's difficult to assign nationalities, but I think it was not that complicated in these cases. Don't worry, not a big deal. :)Totemkin (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

People and peace treaties

You changed 30 people from human to peace treaty. Can you please change them back with the Widar? Thanks. 130.88.141.34 10:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Q634965

Q634965 is not a human. Please, dont click without reading.Олюсь (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Q273167

Q273167 is not a human. Why are you doing it?Олюсь (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Q4226800

Q4226800 is not a human.Олюсь (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Q336233

Q336233 is not a human.Олюсь (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Please do not restore invalid values

Hello, [23], [24]. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The way it works is that I assume that in certain categories I find humans. I do check for the instance of (whatever) in order to prevent getting things that are already something.. Consequently roll back does not really work.. Making a statement as to what something is, does. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 19:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Q208620

Q208620 is not a human.Олюсь (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Q208620

Q208620 is not a human.Олюсь (talk) 19:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Q899044

Q899044 is not a human.Олюсь (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Q386272

Q386272 is not a human.Олюсь (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Q192445

Q192445 is not a human.Олюсь (talk) 19:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Q192457

Q192457 is not a human.Олюсь (talk) 04:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Duos marked as humans

Hello Gerard, please do not add instance of (P31)human (Q5) and/or subclass of (P279)human (Q5) to items such as the Wachowskis (Q195719), which are correctly marked as sibling duo (Q14073567). A group of people is not a human. Thanks. Mushroom (talk) 13:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I made an error in one query.. Am correcting it now. GerardM (talk) 14:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Mushroom (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Ik kom non-stop nog foutjes tegen, zoals Q2097278 en Q2336605, allemaal van 13 juli 2014. Zou je dat rondje ook nog even kunnen controleren? Groeten Grashoofd (talk) 11:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Nogmaals dit verzoek. Ik word stapelgek van de foute edits! Het liefst zie ik dat je alle edits van July 13th terugdraait. Ben al dagenlang bezig met jouw rotzooi op te ruimen. Grashoofd (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Different Approach

Right; Let's try a completely different approach than arguing on PC about the IRC channel. I've spoken to Lydia and she agreed to this so; Below I am going to list a few meta details about the channel (chanops, purposes, bots in etc.) and then ask you a few questions. Hopefully this will give a more informative response than arguing and perhaps we can implement a few ideas.

• Purpose: Community discussion and development discussion
• Bots: wm-bot and grrrit-wm.
• Channel operators; Lydia (contact), Rschen7754, Tiptoety and I.
• No real rules apart from obvious trolling, spamming etc. will result in a kick/ban

Now the questions;

1. Do you feel the channel's purpose needs to be more specific and/or split up?
2. Do you feel that the current channel operators are appropriate? (Including Lydia as the channel contact) -- I'm sure you know what chanops do, contacts are those responsible for everything in the channel.
3. Should Lydia perhaps appoint a community user to be a contact for the channel along side her/delegate the access to someone else in addition?
4. Do you think the channel in general needs a more welcoming community atmosphere - if so, how?

This is just your opinion but it is what you think is best for the community. Lydia and I (if I can) will be more than happy to implement what you say if it betters the community as that is our top priority. Also on a side note - do you feel the mailing list is community welcoming enough? Any responses you give will be appreciated :) Thanks, John F. Lewis (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I want to add one thing: Not splitting the user and developer community must be a top priority for us. I see the IRC channel as one important piece in that puzzle. When developers are too far away from their users bad things happen. We've seen this in so many places around Wikimedia so many times now. --LydiaPintscher (talk) 19:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

What is the point of making a proposal and arguing when Lydia states that she does not want it. What is left is a difference of opinion. Wikidata suffers from bad communication and not having a functional user driven channel is imho an important part of it. Being forceful in stating that everything is fine and that the community is to blame is your position as I see it. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 09:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Presidencies and premierships

Hi, I've reverted some of your (and your bot's) edits about presidencies, you've marked them human, and your bot has treated them that way. However, I've not reverted all such edits. Could you please review the search list in my chat post? Thank you. Muelleum (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Q11686818

Hey. I reverted this, and few another edits via game. If you don't understand some language please don't add human (Q5) in item. You can set this in settings on "prefer languages" you know. Regards, Rzuwig^► 21:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Bad edit

Hi, I remarked that you marked Consulta Araldica (Q1822839) as a person using Widar/Wikidata Game. It is not a person, and I reverted. Please be carefull when playing. It is not (just) a game. Regards, Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 14:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Also Master of the Boqueteaux (Q893251) is not human as you stated. You should fix your incorrect statements. Regards, Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 16:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

@Dipsacus fullonum: why do you only delete the incorrect statement and don't add a good one? Otherwise it would happen again. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sjoerddebruin: you are right that it would be the best solution to change the statements with instance of (P31) to use correct values. However, I did not know the right values to use, and it would take long time for me to investigate and find good values. I cannot see why I should use my time on 2 certain items, just because another inserted false claims. Regards, Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 18:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Found one more, Template:Q10539478, and here I could change the value. Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

a composer is also an engineer?

Hi there, I am a little confused as to how w:Tomohiro Harada at Q3674583 was supposedly an engineer. No part of the English article says "engineer" or anything even close to "engineer", and it doesn't look like the Italian article does either. Given that it was set using Widar, there are probably other people similarly labelled inaccurately so please check for them once you get back to your computer. Thanks --Haplology (talk) 23:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

... a mere cursory look at one page of your 50 most recent contributions shows these four guys who are not engineers either: Q6433817, Q7827431, Q974840, Q6434513, and I only clicked on a handful. 1+4/50 gives us at best a 90% accuracy rate, which I for one do not consider acceptable.

To add to the above contributor's concerns, you added at least a couple hundred or so inaccurate P31:Q5 on your recent tear through Japanese people making every likely error that a careless Widar abuser would make: animals were people, comedy duos were people, and in a particularly blatant abuse, bands, radio series, and musical singles were all people and all had gender:female. There may be more--who knows? thousands even--but the couple hundred are only the ones that I found and fixed myself so far. Setting gender at the same time was especially reckless because it made it harder for those bad edits to be found and corrected later through the Game by people who looked at what they were making claims about.

All of this wouldn't bother me so much if it were possible to assume that you had the intent to check your edits and fix your own mistakes to some extent, one aspect of good faith, but you obviously don't because it's impossible if you don't understand the language. --Haplology (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Stop play Widar "game", please

Again, Fyodor Dostoyevsky (Q991) is not a engineer (Q81096). I think there are too many errors already so you should stop using Widar application. Well, unless you are ready to take responsibility and recheck all your edits by yourself. Even 100 good edits are not an excuse to make a wrong statement. We are not in hurry to fill occupation (P106) or whatever property. -- Vlsergey (talk) 07:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

P.S.: Adding engineer (Q81096) to Michael D. Griffin (Q357956) is also wrong, because aerospace engineer (Q15895020) were already there. -- Vlsergey (talk) 08:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Hoi, I disagree with your assertion that there is no reason to make quick progress. The notion that a specific type of engineer is superior to engineer is debatable as well. Personally I prefer to combine engineer with field of work. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 09:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason to make quick "progress" along with errors that discredit the whole idea. -- Vlsergey (talk) 10:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry guys, check out your categories... I checked Mr Dostojevsky .. he is an engineer. Sorry. GerardM (talk) 07:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

He is not. Alumni doesn't mean he worked at least single day as engineer, neither that his qualification was an engineer (not an teacher, not an economist or whatever Military_Engineering-Technical_University can raise). Alumni means you can fill "alumni" field, it doesn't mean you can fill up "occupation" property. You must not jump to conclusions. Or provide the source, please, i.e. the source states that he is engineer. There is a mistake in enwiki -- including alumni into engineers, and there is your mistake to use "deep" categorization to assign properties. -- Vlsergey (talk) 09:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Just stop already

Another bunch of mistakes so blatant [25] [26] it's hard to believe that you care at all. Your bot flag was removed precisely because of the high error rate but now you're just using widar: still sloppy, still in denial, still unresponsive to criticism. Please, just stop already. Pichpich (talk) 20:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Well communication is a two way street. We suck at it. I have repeatedly argued that we need better communications because your perception and mine differ way too much.

When you refer to previous incidents, I can tell you that I asked for communication which was denied and thanks to communications that did happen changes in the way I and Creator work have been implemented at the time. As far as I am concerned, I do not really know you and given your tone should I care to know you? GerardM (talk) 07:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi GerardM. In the last month, I reverted 224 edits of yours, not including the ones where some statement you added was transferred to another item by someone else when merging. Most of those have been more or less random findings by me (e.g. when playung the "Missing gender" game). Given that a many other users also had to revert many of your edits and I'm sure that there are many incorrect statements left unnoticed, I urge you once more: Please slow down your edit speed.

When setting statements automatically, always asure that you exclude items that already have conflicting statements. When working with categories, preview them in order to have an overview whether there are some overview articles (e.g. lists of deaths in a "Died this year" category) at least. When working with Autolist to add a statement to many items, quickly check the labels (Autolist loads them one by one) whether they sound plausible. When having done many automated edits, overview your contributions list whether you'll see some that might be mistaken. If Magnus introduces an edit rate limit into his Widar tools not to flood recent changes, don't trick this limit by working with several Widar instances simultaneously.

It's not that I don't get your point. Wikidata is borderline useless for many things as long as so many items have so little statements - including Wikidata maintenance itself, as the more statements we have the easier it will be to spot errors, even (semi)automatically. So adding statements is a very important task, and with having millions of items, we need to do it at a certain pace if we ever want to reach a certain level of quantity that is needed for Wikidata to be useful. However, just dropping statements without any sufficient plausibility checks prevents reaching the quality goals we of course also have.

Everybody is adding some incorrect ststements every now and then, and especially since the Widar tools and the game are there, I've seen a lot of those. But when it comes to tagging items as humans, I haven't seen anybody, including any bots (that do way more edits than you in total), making more than a slight fraction of incorrect allocations of the ones you do. So please: Stop hurrying. If you reduce your speed by some amount and increase the amount of care that you put in your edits, I firmly believe that Wikidata will grow faster and will be better in the end. --YMS (talk) 08:48, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Please re-read your talk page and the discussion about the removal of your bot flag. I am not the only one pointing out that your error rate is unacceptable. In fact, I can't see anyone defending your position. It's possible to use widar without screwing up so much. Yes, it takes a little bit more work on your part but it saves time for others who need to clean up your mess. Pichpich (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

You assume that bots do more than I do.. Some do, some do not. At this moment in time I have 1,306,143 edits. When I do nothing but Wikidata, I can do 100,000 edits in a day. Given these numbers, it is impossible not to make numerous edits that some consider to be wrong.

When you say that an error rate is unacceptable, you do not indicate what makes it unacceptable. I have been saying for quite some time now that the way we communicate is unacceptably poor. I indicate why it is poor. For me shouting matches like these are depressive, they serve little purpose and it has us not collaborate on identifying and solving the issues we face.

According to some, using IRC should work just fine. When I am online you can find me there. I am happy to work with anyone on sorting out our issues. When there is nothing but a "blame game", things will only get worse is my prediction. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 15:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

„When I do nothing but Wikidata, I can do 100,000 edits in a day.” You can't or you are breaking knowingly the rule, that allows a maximum of ten edits per minute. See YMS comment above. --Succu (talk) 15:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Apparently you are not interested in communicating only in blaming. First there is a restriction in the software and I do not modify the software in any way. Apart from that there is no rule. Second, there is software that allows me to go faster than that. I do not use it as it is not efficient and too error prone. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 15:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

LOL. I know the software limits very well. I see no reaction to the balanced statement of YMS above... --Succu (talk) 16:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

countship (Q17485532)

Hi Gerard! Why didn't you use countship (Q353344)? --Succu (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Because I was looking for a "graafschap" and it is ruled by a graaf.. I do not know to what extend the one you refer to fits as such.. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

graafschap means Grafschaft and the commonscat in countship (Q353344) is countships. So less hurry... --Succu (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

PMG wikimania

Hello

From this side PMG - we meet at wikimania in restaurant and were talking a lot about wikidata

Bernard of Clairvaux (Q188411)

Hello Gerard M,

excuse me, but really] ? :DD - unless you got some very private info about him :D

I know you did this edit through "The Game", which can lead to unintended erroneous edit… I did some myself… ;) - but still…

What bothers me is, the gender had already been fixed (by me, which explains why it was in my follow list) - so I wonder about "how did this item stay in the gender game ?" - if it was still in The Game, a bug report should be left on the Git reposit, to warn Magnus that the filtering out of already fixed gender does not work properly…

Yours, --Hsarrazin (talk) 13:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

sorry, the item number was wrong at first :)--Hsarrazin (talk) 13:38, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Sadly one of the Wikipedias has it wrong in its categories ... Sorry. GerardM (talk) 14:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

!!!!! What !!!!

Can you explain this and many other false edits in wikidata of Israeli politicians?! --Davcza (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

They are downstream from a category that implies that people are an adherent to Islam. GerardM (talk) 06:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

GerardM, please see Wikidata:Project chat#Vandalism? where this is discussed, and where I ask you to stop adding stamentents using the categorization of Wikipedia articles without checking each case. Regards, Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 06:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Please consider to fix all your wrong edits now instead of defending them. Still lot of them are not fixed. --Jklamo (talk) 08:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I have too little information to help ... When I have a clue what categories are involved I can help. Now it is a wild goose chase for me. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 08:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

GerardM, it's your task to find the error source. If you can't, please make in future a log file of all your jobs you're submitting with autolist and please control the speed of editing so that you can manually check a significant number of your own edits.--Pasleim (talk) 08:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

GerardM, you are responsible for each edit performed by your account and have to fix them. If you aren't able to do so, we may have to regulate which edits you are allowed to do. Best regards, -- Bene* ^t_a^l_k 11:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Based on the information I received I fixed many errors and based on the same error I am adding quite a number of atheists. The problem is that the lack of communication only helps me find a certain amount of issues. You have to understand Israeli demographics. Ask yourself what percentage is Jewish and what percentage practices Islam. The consequence is that it is not a one on one relation. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 06:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with Israeli demographics. "Importing" islam religion to items placed in Category:Muslims based categories is OK (maybe controversial for someone, also not suitable for some of its subcategories), but importing islam religion based on placement in Category:Arab politicians in Israel‎ (or even Category:Israeli politicians) is simply wrong. --Jklamo (talk) 09:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

How many more articles

Probably you were the person, who were asking how many more articles en.wiki can have. My friend have suggestion. PMG (talk) 10:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Removing "List of person" statements

Hi GerardM. You're currently removing is a list of (P360) person (Q215627) statements from a lot of items, a significant part of them (from a quick look at your contributions I'd say > 10 %) actually being lists of persons. So why that? --YMS (talk) 19:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Since I posted my question here, you continued to delete these statements on more than 50 items where I consider it to have been valid until further explaination. So answer my question and tell me why you do so. --YMS (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Please note that I blocked you temporarily to prevent more valid statements from being deleted. Once you explain why you did this or that you will stop doing it, I or any other administrator will of course unblock you. Thanks for understanding. --YMS (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Gerard, this is the next example of edits with a high error rate which shows that you are doing automated edits without thinking of all possible consequences. In my opinion this behaviour is disruptive and hurts the project because automated edits have to be checked before being executed and you have to have a look at it if it may produce such errors. You also have to respond to any problems noted on your talk page and cannot just ignore them or leave your account for an hour alone. Please be more careful in future, otherwise I feel forced to raise this problem on the administrators' noticeboard. -- Bene* ^t_a^l_k 20:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

• We talked about this at Wikimania, and I'm somewhat disappointed. Although a block is not supposed to be taken that badly, it is a sign that you may want to check over your edits more. What worries me the most is that you apparently weren't monitoring your talk page while you ran the job. I know it's late for you, but I also do expect you to fix the errors, as you told me you would do so at the meetup. If you don't, then I would be even more disappointed, because after the conference, my impression was that you would be proactive about fixing your errors when communicated towards.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

FYI I have consulted with JohnLewis on IRC before I started to remove "is a list of" "person". I did indicate that I was about to remove them all. So you see, I do communicate. All the runs were doing fine; they operated as intended.

As far as getting into contact with me, Jasper was well able to contact me on IRC just before I went to sleep. Changes on a talk page is not exactly a great way to get attention. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 21:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, talking to one person on IRC does not constitute sufficient communication before starting or continuing a batch of potentially wrong changes. This is a wiki after all, so IRC is very useful but user talk pages are supposed to be the main form of communication when trying to get attention of a user with regards to his edits. Regards, SPQRobin (talk) 21:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@GerardM: I also later PM'd you saying that you do need to monitor this talk page; monitoring your talk page is the impression I got from our talk at Wikimania. IRC is not enough. Also, John tells me that he did not actually give his endorsement for your edits (via a PM on IRC; he can confirm that here).--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I guess since I was asked; I can confirm what Jasper said. I did not endorse the changes - merely stated the example given looked incorrect. John F. Lewis (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

[20:00] GerardM- JohnLewis: when you look at for instance ... http://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?q=3248

[20:00] GerardM- it includes "is a list of" "person"

[20:00] GerardM- we do not use person anymore

[20:00] GerardM- can I bin those statements ?

[20:01] JohnLewis Yeah

[20:01] GerardM- cool will do

Talk pages increase transparency and are essential for a healthy community. Only a small subset of editors use IRC and the logs are not typically available so it's quite an opaque way of doing things and always creates suspicions of cabal-esque behaviour. On the other hand, this talk page quite clearly shows a pattern: many people have independently and consistently reported high rates of errors on your part and have not found you too interested in their complaints. I'm surprised that this is your first block since you're essentially running an unauthorized bot (through widar) and not assuming complete responsibility for its numerous mistakes. Pichpich (talk) 02:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

So it is OK to talk ABOUT people on IRC but not WITH people? The result is only unnecessary drama. GerardM (talk) 08:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Using IRC as a secondary, external communication channel to chat a little, to quickly clarify things or to decide some non-critical actions is perfectly fine. However, if you do some mass-actions that look doubtful, you can't expect someone else to use the channel of your choice. If somebody asks on Wikidata (which is its own primary communication channel, where discussions are visible and open to all Wikidata members, whether they use IRC or not and whether they are there in this very moment or not) about some of your actions, you should never just ignore it and go on with your mass actions. This causes what you call drama. If you are, for some reason, not able to check your talk page on a regular basis, you cannot expect people to see if they can reach you somewhere else, and you simply shouldn't perform thousands of edits in such a moment without a bot account (if at all). --YMS (talk) 09:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@GerardM: You should know well that posting logs of IRC conversations without the permission of the other person is frowned upon. In either case, although I like IRC, you must pay attention to your wiki talk page, because that is the only thing the whole community will see.

IRC and this talk page are not mutually exclusive, but are independent: you cannot use IRC to replace your user talk page. I hope that is clear.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

We do not have persons, not really

Hoi, "Person" is an artefact of the time before we transitioned away from the "GND identifier". Consequently we do not have lists of "person", we have list of humans. Once an item is known as "instance of" the person is typically removed. This is often done by bots.

The question therefore is why we should retain "is a list of" "person". The fact that we have them is not really an argument. However, as there are so many of them, I asked John for confirmation that it would be a good bad idea to remove them all. Apparently some of you think differently and I love to hear your argument.

FYI there is nothing wrong with approaching me by IRC. It works and it prevents drama.

FYI it is relatively easy to undo the removes of all these edits. Amir has a bot that allows him to do just that. I worked with him on this one.

FYI this is NOT a mistake. This was a deliberate deletion of a specific set of statements. Mistakes are different; they are unforeseen consequences of a specific selection. They are typically the consequence of categories that do not fit "set theory".

FYI as I mentioned to Jasper on IRC, I will not be as active as I used to be. In this case I had started up several actions and having seen that they worked as designed I did some chores in the house. Today I am at work and while I am, my computer will not be active. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 07:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I was mentioned, so I confirm that undoing is easy for me and my bot, I wrote several patches in pywikibot to make it better. Amir (talk) 08:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

As no rationale for the edits has been given 12 hours after my initial question and several hours after you started your next task, I started to revert the ones that I found to be incorrect. I reverted some 150 to 200 edits (the newest ones, with an unknown amount of older ones remaining) until I noticed this statement here. Finally, this is an explaination. I don't know if this consideration is enough to start a mass-deletion, but it sure is enough to not go on with my mass-revert. If we consider the reverts to be correct after some discussion, I'd like to ask Amir to go on with them. In the other case, he might revert my reverts. Sorry for the circumstances. --YMS (talk) 08:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I did talk with Jasper but this was not really about this issue but about the fact that in IRC admins were talking about blocking me.. REALLY.. I am on IRC and I do complain a lot and loudly about the lack of good and effective communication. As Jasper can attest I was about to go to bed. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 08:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• May be it's useful to have value "person" because not all parts of the disambiguation lists are real humans (some can be fictitious humans). --Infovarius (talk) 12:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

This is also consistent with our current model: human (Q5) is a sublass of person (Q215627), so a list of humans is a list of persons. --YMS (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

p570 to a living person

Hello, why have you added Property:P570 to a living person's record [27]? --Akim Dubrow (talk) 22:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Because he was listed as dead on a Wikipedia. GerardM (talk) 04:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

At which wiki? Checked both linked ruwiki and ukwiki and none of these article mentioned death. --Jklamo (talk) 08:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I get them on a list that looks at the categories of Wikipedias. When you are interested check the categories and or the histories. GerardM (talk) 09:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Admin noticeboard

I have started a discussion about your edits at Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard#User:GerardM. --Rschen7754 02:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

NEW : Gadget labelLister, list headers of an item in all language

I've just launch a new beta version of labelLister that allow you to change several language at one go. You just need to click on a value, then edit it, then save your change.

To activate the beta mode, click on "Labels list" tab then click on "go to beta version".

Cordialy, --Jitrixis (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks :) is what I made of it GerardM (talk) 06:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Alasdair MacIntyre is not a judge

On Q310178, you added the claim that the noted philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre's occupation is that of a judge. On Wikipedia, adding an incorrect statement about a living person's occupation would be violation of the BLP policy—if Wikidata becomes widely implemented, such egregious errors won't just affect one Wikipedia but potentially dozens at a time. Please be more careful in ensuring that your high-speed automated editing does not introduce incorrect facts about living human beings, especially as there is a board resolution urging Wikimedia on exactly this topic. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I had a look at him.. I added several other statements.. The one thing that surprises me is that it is suggested that he is American. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 13:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I have set up a cleanup page - see User:Tom Morris/GerardM judge cleanup - to try and co-ordinate community cleanup of this hot BLP-infringing mess. I've spent numerous hours of each of the past four days trying to clean up after your high-speed semi-automated editing, so I'm asking for help to review your edits. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I have worked with Tom on identifying the issue.. As a result I cleaned many more items that were wrong. Collaboration works.. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 07:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Q1329310

Hi, you marked Rabbi Eliezer (1st-2nd century) today as a Muslim even though he was a Jew who lived centuries before the birth of Islam. DGtal (talk) 07:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

This has to do with categories that are downstream from categories indicating Islam.. I identified at least one category that is flaky, Jews in Mandatory Palestine, and am changing all the items involved. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 08:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I love most of your work, but I recommend you double check your methodology. I saw I was not the only one complaining and my philosophy is better be slow and precise than do a "quick and dirty" job hoping someone will notice the errors. Good luck, DGtal (talk) 11:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Order of the British Empire

Regarding this edit, there is no "Order of the British Empire" award. People are either a Member of the Order of the British Empire (Q12201526), Officer of the Order of the British Empire (Q10762848), Commander of the Order of the British Empire (Q12201477) or Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire (Q12201434) / Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire (Q12201445) - and the article in question already had the former. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Have it under control. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Mutate a Wikimedia list into an item of the list (instance of person), then use this item as an event!

Hi,

I saw this diff in my watchlist: Róża Berger (Q7386597)‎; 04:26 . . (+407)‎ . . ‎GerardM (talk | contribs)‎ (‎Created claim: significant event (P793): Auschwitz concentration camp inmate (Q1545667)) (Tag: Widar [1.3])

First, I were a little surprised an instance of human is a valid event. So I created imprisonment at Auschwitz concentration camp (Q17986818), as instance of imprisonment (Q841236).

Please be more careful in the future, the messages supra have asked you very cleary to think before to run an automated batch. I now need to replace more than one thousand items to avoid an human is an event.

Then, I noticed the de. Wikipedia link on list of Auschwitz concentration camp inmates (Q1545667) were a little surprising too. I then look the history, and surprise, this were a Wikimedia list item! You changed the meaning of an item to reuse it (wrongly).

In such circustamces, it seems more interesting to apply the rule one notion = one item and to create an item for the list, an item for the class of list item, and here, an item for the event.

I restored Q1545667 as a list, with is a list of (P360) set to the new item you should have created instead to edit this one, Auschwitz concentration camp inmate (Q17986815).

--Dereckson (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you borked this yourself. The item wasn't a list item before you edited it, despite linking to a German language list page. --- Jura 20:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

According the history, here the original state before GerardM edited it. A list.

Then, GerardM edited the item. Not a list anymore.

And finally, now, as explained in the sixth paragraph, I restored the article in its pristine state. A list again.

--Dereckson (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, you are correct: the edit in July wasn't ideal. The question is if it's worth changing it back now, after the item was added to 100s of items. --- Jura 20:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I hesitated too. Do we have a tool to get every item linked to another item (like what's link here), excluding a specific claim? The issue here is we needed to see if the item isn't used elsewhere in another meaning. --Dereckson (talk) 20:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Tool exists to move(Request for non-admins and commands for admins) but it moves all whatlinkshere. — by Revi_complaint? at 03:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

In the past it was decided that we do not create new items for the singular of what is a "list" in a Wikipedia when there are no singular articles. It was preferred to rename it and use it for whatever the singular item is. There are tons of items that are in such a way. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

But we also decided items were to be created when we need them for structured data.

We're clearly here in the case indicated on the WD:N page: ”It fulfills some structural need, for example: it is needed to make statements made in other items more useful.”

Do you understand why it's not the optimal solution to put a class of humans item of a property requiring an event as value? --Dereckson (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

There are more than 200 articles in de:Kategorie:Häftling im KZ Auschwitz. --Succu (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hoi, you did a lot of work and actually it is against the way we do things at Wikidata.. I would prefer you to undo it all. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Yup, these edits are in the ”It fulfills some structural need, for example: it is needed to make statements made in other items more useful.” goal, as explained here. --Dereckson (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I paused the correction job the time to get a consensus.

As I don't see a relevant project, I added a message on Wikidata:Project chat where I tried to express our two positions. Please review if I haven't misrepresented your thoughts there.

According the consensus, I will either complete the correction job or undo. --Dereckson (talk) 21:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I've resumed the job, per this discussion on project chat.

Please in the future create items to respect the meaning of the property you add or ask community for best course of action when you're in doubt. --Dereckson (talk) 12:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Special:Diff/147221496

FYI, this is not a human. I suggest you to have a google translation running if you do not know the language you're trying to add. — by Revi_complaint? at 06:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

even not knowing a single workd of the considered language, I can tell that this item is much more probably a musical album ;) - do you sometimes just try and understand the items you work on ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 09:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

When an article has it that it was born in whatever year, I should be able to assume that it is a human. Reasonable isn't it ? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 12:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it is most definitely not. Even if it were the birth date, which it was apparently not in this case, all kinds of animals are categorized by birth years. I have reverted scores of careless edits where you added an animal as a human. Please stop carelessly adding humans based on unreliable criteria and stop adding statements based on pages written in languages that you don't understand. --Haplology (talk) 00:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

It's the release date, not the birth date. --Dereckson (talk) 12:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It is in the category not in the text used in the article. GerardM (talk) 12:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

ko:분류:1990년 음반 is linked to en:Category:1990 albums and to Category:1990 albums (Q7166130). --Dereckson (talk) 13:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't add unfounded statements please

Can you please tell me, where did this come from? And can you please better check the statements you are adding?--Shlomo (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, can you clean up the mess you caused? Apparently Mr. Šabata is not the only Czech politician moved by you to Warsaw...--Shlomo (talk) 22:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Mário Peres Ulibarri

Could you provide references for his death? Regards --Jey (talk) 19:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Portuguese Wikipedia .. GerardM (talk) 04:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Has no reference, should be removed. --Jey (talk) 15:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

right, that means you can remove 99% of Wikidata. GerardM (talk) 04:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually it's not such a bad idea... Thanks to your unresponsible use of sub(...)categories while adding statements and your unwillingness to correct your errors I'm proposing on Czech Wikipedia not to use Wikidata without reference in infoboxes.--Shlomo (talk) 05:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I have stopped using subcategories mostly and I am done talking with people who approach me in an obnoxious way. GerardM (talk) 06:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, you can hardly expect people to approach you in a deferential way when you apparently expect them to find and correct your obnoxious edits. Anyway, thanks for starting talking with me...--Shlomo (talk) 07:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Back to the item in question: there was probably a confusion with another Marinho. Somebody on ptwiki didn't get it over the heading...--Shlomo (talk) 08:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

From my perspective, this was a good faith edit. I did provide a source. It is not my problem when the sources itself are at fault. There is no helping that. GerardM (talk) 09:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Ptwiki is not a source, and in this case it doesn't provide a source either. And who should take responsibility for your edits if you don't? Of course it was a good faith edit (as it probably was also on ptwiki), nobody blames you for vandalism, but even the errors made in a good faith are errors and should be corrected.--Shlomo (talk) 10:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Shlomo wikipedia itself is not a source. If an information is challenged external source should be provided or info deleted. Please consider this next time. Thanks again! --Jey (talk) 21:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Valentyn Hryshchenko (Q4149999) → occupation (P106) → journalist (Q1930187)

Please, provide the source for this claim. -- Vlsergey (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

false claim of citizenship

could you please explain this edit ? How could a person from 19th have citizenship of the Czech republic? It is the same as if I asserted that Julius Caesar was citizen of Italy. It spoils articles at cs.wikipedia that automatically diplay wikidata items. You should go through all edits you made automatically along with this one and delete them or provide some source. And I want to make clear, that I am going to complain about your routine to the wikidata administrators. --Davcza (talk) 09:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Ivan Knunyants (Q738617) → country of citizenship (P27) → Armenia (Q399)

Please, note, that it is incorrect to add second value of some other value already present in item, especially incorrect one. Please also rollback all changes based on the same source in other items. -- Vlsergey (talk) 00:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Andrei Sakharov (Q997) → religion or worldview (P140) → atheism (Q7066)

Please, provide the very good source for this claim (since it's BLP-related). -- Vlsergey (talk) 03:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

My sources are in the way I work... they are the categories where people are marked for what and who they are.. The categories I use I document. Thanks GerardM (talk) 06:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that is not enought. Please, provide the source for specific claim about specific person. It was not documented. Also, as we saw before, sometimes you are not just using categories but making an original derivations from them (like professions from recursive categories). That's why I asking you either to provide the source or cancel your edit along with all other automated edits from the same batch. -- Vlsergey (talk) 07:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with Vlsergey. I came here to report your inexing Liraz Charhi (Q7047702) as Moslem, which she isn't and never was (see also #Q1329310). It's one thing to add claims based on a direct category and assume good faith and proffesionalism of local editors, but when you start adding claims based on subcategories you can see the result - countless errors that will take years to fix. DGtal (talk) 06:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Mojżesz Moszkowski (Q4305325) → country of citizenship (P27) → Poland (Q36)

Please, provide the source for the claim or rollback the changes from the same changeset. -- Vlsergey (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

In any case the claim is incompatible with the constraint defined at Talk:Q36. At least one of them has to go.--Shlomo (talk) 10:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

No reaction for one week... I'm removing this statement, but I don't know how to track the other changes to rollback. It would be nice, if GerardM would show a bit of responsibility and help us with that...--Shlomo (talk) 18:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Given the place of birth that is firmly in Poland, you go ahead.. GerardM (talk) 05:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to check your edits one by one. Can you provide a list of items to which you added a statement based on this odd presumption, so that a bot can remove them?--Shlomo (talk) 19:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

And by the way, since when is Caracas (Q1533) situated in Poland (Q36)? Looks like tracking all the changes won't be that easy...--Shlomo (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Pomnik wikipedii

Hello Gerard

I am trying to Wikidata:Showcase_items do from Wikipedia Monument (Q18201640). I don`t have experience with this. can you help me? PMG (talk) 17:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not into showcase items. GerardM (talk) 16:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Dupes

Hi GerardM,

are these the same? Judaic scholar (Q5121550) and Judaic scholar (Q17477698). Greetings --Nachcommonsverschieber (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

They are. GerardM (talk) 16:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Quarter of town is not human

Quarter of town really is not human, also there is no need to add human statements to another quarter of town (interesting that both errors are "Hamburg based"). Please try to avoid errors like this in future. Thanks. --Jklamo (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Eilbek is a name like many others who pop up. Apparently it has a date of birth.. Shit happens. GerardM (talk) 04:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

There are a few items for people with articles in nlwiki that lack P31:Q5. When trying to fix them, I added the above. I can't really reproduce it now.

Eilbek and some others ("Stephen Harper"?) come up when doing this http://tools.wmflabs.org/autolist/index.php?language=nl&project=wikipedia&category=Nederlands%20dichter&depth=1&wdq=claim%5B31%5D&mode=undefined&statementlist=&run=Run&label_contains=&label_contains_not=&chunk_size=100 None actually should appear.

There seems to be a bug with categories in nlwiki. --- Jura 05:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It might help if you weren't adding this property to items with names that don't have the format "Name Surname". Streets and numbers aren't human, either. Both examples are named after a person, but the second word isn't capitalized, so it should be obvious that the linked page needs to be checked first. — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

These suggestions are not always correct. For Koream people the last part are NOT capitalised. People with a rank are often called with a number. 06:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Well yes, that's why you need to check them before clicking "yes, human", and skip if you're not sure. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

New Zealand footballers

Hi. I have stumbled on a couple of female New Zealand footballer who were classified as US-american. (Q1669821 and Q832256) In both cases you have entered the statements. I don't exclude some dobble citizenships, but I wanted to notice you in case there is some systematic mistake in your sources, and perhaps other items have the same mistake. Best regards, --Wikijens (talk) 08:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It turns out that all too often Wikipedias have conflicting information in their categories.. is an "American footballer" American ?? All too often they are inclusive and consider anyone who plays / playes in a US team as American.. The consequence is that particularly nationality is very iffie. I am not entering such data that much anymore. GerardM (talk) 09:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

award received (P166) Litteris et Artibus (Q3368405) to years

Hi Gerard, you added this to quite a few years. Please correct. Multichill (talk) 20:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Getting to grip with a new tool ... Thanks for catching this :) GerardM (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The Structured Data Bee, vol. 1, issue 1

Greetings, thank you for signing up for the Structured Data newsletter and its first edition. With this newsletter, the Structured data team plans on keeping you informed of technical progress, events, and communications to talk about the project, and continued information on how you can participate. This newsletter will be sent approximately every two weeks, and future editions will be translatable prior to publication. If you're new to Wikidata and want more information about how it works in relation to Wikimedia Commons, you can read an introduction to Wikidata for Commons being drafted.

Tech and design

• The software development for this process is still in the planning phases. The idea is to have some functional prototyping done for experimentation and feedback by the end of the year.
• The initial roadmap for development has been posted on Commons. The roadmap is a rough outline and is open to iterations as the team learns where and when to focus its energies.
• There is a page set up for design ideas about what structured data could potentially look like.
• There are forthcoming requests for comment about the particulars of technical architecture on mediawiki.org. Keep an eye on the commons:Commons:Structured data/Get involved page for notification of when the RfCs are posted.

Events and chats

• There was a week-long meeting between the Wikimedia Foundation's Multimedia team, the Wikidata team, and community members, held in Berlin, Germany, at the office of Wikimedia Deutchland on October 6-10. You can read an overview of the event in on this page on Commons. There are also plenty of pictures available on Wikimedia Commons.

• If you would like to read more detail about what was discussed, there are etherpads of notes taken for each day of the event.

• The next IRC office hour to discuss the structured data project will be held on November 20, from 19:30 to 20:30 UTC.

• The second IRC office hour (logs) was held on October 16, and the first (logs) on September 3.

Getting involved

• You've signed up for the newsletter. That's a great first step!
• While working prototypes are being developed, there is a drive to make all files contain machine-readable data on Wikimedia projects.

• The information and sign-up page is located on Meta, at File metadata cleanup drive.
• The MrMetadata tool on labs that will identify files on your wiki(s) that need information templates added.

• A hub has been launched to facilitate communication and documentation for this work.

• There is a frequently-asked questions page that is finishing drafting and will need translated. Keep an eye out for when it is ready if you are interested in translating.
• There will be active organization of the Get involved page as community participation is further organized. There will be work groups, similar to specific Wikiprojects, dedicated to particular aspects of structured data like licensing presentation, design, API performance, and even helping out with this newsletter and other community communications.

There will be much more information and activities around the proposal to develop structured data on Wikimedia Commons. This project is a major undertaking and an important step as the chief provider, repository, and curator of media for Wikimedia projects.

Thank you for your participation in such an extensive project, let me know if you're interested in participating in this newsletter. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 04:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

--This message was sent using MassMessage. Was there an error? Report it!

Falkland Islands people

While the status of the islands is in dispute, the great majority of Falkland Islanders definitely do not have Argentine citizenship, and do have UK citizenship, especially the territory's politicians.[28] Please be aware of facts like this when contributing to disputed territories and such. I'm pointing this out even though it's been a while since you mass-added Argentine citizenship since I don't see how you could have got that just automatically (even the categories on Spanish Wikipedia mark Falkland Island politicians as UK citizens). Cheers, Innotata (talk) 07:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Lists

Why are you converting lists like list of governors of Tripura (Q64777) to a item to use for position held (P39)? Standard practice was always to create a new item. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 10:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It was decided that we would use these lists for the subject when there is no item for the subject. The idea is that we do not need lists but we need the item. It was discussed in them days extensively. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 10:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

If this was discussed, can you give me a link to that discussion? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 10:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

voice type (P412) = Telugu (Q8097)

Hello, this edit is looked as error. Another errors of this type can be found in Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/Mandatory constraints/Violations. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 07:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I am fixing it. It is a typo. GerardM (talk) 08:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

P39: Q486839

Can you please explain, why are you removing them? --Shlomo (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I blogged about it. GerardM (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Err, sorry, but that blog post makes no sense to me. Please explain further. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Neither to me. How should Piet van der Sanden (Q2566782) explain a total removal (without replacement) of useful statement(s) in other item(s) including qualifiers (6 of them in the quoted case)? I assume, this was a robotic/Widaric edit and there will be more damaged items than only this one, will they?. --Shlomo (talk) 11:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

It is in the fact that member of parliament is a high order item. Subclasses for it are added all the time including the ones for the Dutch and Australian parliament. While I am removing these statements I add them at an almost equal rate. I have added thousands and thousands of parliamentarians. They are not equal. GerardM (talk) 11:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't contradict changing the statemnts' values items to their more specific subclasses, but that's not what you were doing here. The two edits of yours I have checked so far just removed the statements including qualifiers and didn't add anything. I doubt you were going to replace these two statements with "better ones" (including the qualifiers) in the near future, were you? Even if so, that's not the way to change the statements; you can change the statement's value without removing the whole statement (as I did) so you can preserve the qualifiers, references and rank.

BTW I added this statement with a more specific value, but the value item was replaced by a more general one later. And then you delete the whole statement on grounds of being to general. Quite demotivating for one's further involvement in the project, isn't it? --Shlomo (talk) 12:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hoi, as far as I am aware I have added many many members of parliaments in the last few days. I am sorry for your loss of a single or a few statements. Given that member of parliament is not used, there is little option but to replace them. I do add loads of them. You can easily check that out. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 13:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

1. What do you mean by "member of pariament is not used"? Used for what?
2. What do you mean by "there is little option but to replace them"? Replace whom by what? And why? And who should do the replacement? If you don't like the "member of parliament" value, above I tried to explain you that there's a way to change it and preserve the work of previous editors. Did you read my message?
3. What do you mean by "loss of a single or a few statements"? I can see hundreds (maybe thousands) of deleted statements.
4. I'm not complaining about your adding of many many members of many many parliaments. I'm complaining about your deleting of many many statements containing useful data and destroying the effort of many many editors who added them.--Shlomo (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Bad block

Sorry for not leaving this until now, but I'm so sorry for blocking you, I thought you were removing the statements. I was so tired and sleepy. Again, I apologize. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Q17320547: member of which National Assembly of Czechoslovakia

I'd like to ask you which "National Assembly" did you have in mind having created this item. There were several legislative bodies with this name („Národní shromáždění“ or „Národné zhromaždenie“) in the history of Czechoslovakia, with quite different positions:

1. Revolutionary National Assembly of Czechoslovakia (Q12049303) (1918-1920)
2. National Assembly of the Czechoslovak Republic (Q12041660) (1920-1939)
3. Provisional National Assembly of Czechoslavakia (Q12047295) (1945-1946)
4. Constituent National Assembly (Q11088134) (1945-1948)
5. (item not found...) (1948-1960)
6. National Assembly of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic (Q12041661) (1960-1968)

Is it one of them? Or any of them? Or some other? Maybe Federal Assembly (Q3564203), or House of the Nations (Q12055160)? Please can you make it clear in the item through some statement, or on its talk page? Thanks, --Shlomo (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I use a category and try to find a corresponding item. If there is not I create them. If it is not obvious (at the time) I do nothing. GerardM (talk) 06:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

And can you tell which category did you use when you created this item? There would be a good chance to identify the corresponding instance of National Assemblies (or whatever other parliaments) if you can...--Shlomo (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I consulted the issue with User:Mormegil. It seems like you used Category:Members of the Federal Assembly of Czechoslovakia (Q9023661) having confused "National Assembly" and "Federal Assembly", and the other contributors just copied or translated your label and description. I'll change the labels and descriptions in the languages I know, you're wellcome to help with the other ones you are familiar with.--Shlomo (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Structured Data on Commons update

Greetings,

After a delay in updates to the Structured data on Commons project, I wanted to catch you up with what has been going on over the past three months. In short: The project is on hold, but that doesn't mean nothing is happening.

The meeting in Berlin in October provided the engineering teams with a lot to start on. Unfortunately the Structured Data on Commons project was put on hold not too long after this meeting. Development of the actual Structured data system for Commons will not begin until more resources can be allocated to it.

The Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Germany have been working to improve the Wikidata query process on the back-end. This is designed to be a production-grade replacement of WikidataQuery integrated with search. The full project is described at Mediawiki.org.This will benefit the structured data project greatly since developing a high-level search for Commons is a desired goal of this project.

The Wikidata development team is working on the arbitrary access feature. Currently it's only possible to access items that are connected to the current page. So for example on Vincent van Gogh you can access the statements on Q5582, but you can't access these statements on Category:Vincent van Gogh or Creator:Vincent van Gogh. With arbitrary access enabled on Commons we no longer have this limitation. This opens up the possibility to use Wikidata data on Creator, Institution, Authority control and other templates instead of duplicating the data (what we do now). This will greatly enhance the usefulness of Wikidata for Commons.

To use the full potential of arbitrary access the Commons community needs to reimplement several templates in LUA. In LUA it's possible to use the local fields and fallback to Wikidata if it's not locally available. Help with this conversion is greatly appreciated. The different tasks are tracked in phabricator, see https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T89594 .

Volunteers are continuing to add data about artworks to Wikidata. Sometimes an institution website is used and sometimes data is being transfered from Commons to Wikidata. Wikidata now has almost 35.000 items about paintings. This is done as part of the WikiProject sum of all paintings. This helps us to learn how to d:Wikidata:WikiProject Visual arts/Item structuremodel and refine metadata about artworks. Experience that will of course be very useful for Commons too.

Additionally, the metadata cleanup drive continues to produce results. The drive, which is intended to identify files missing {{Information}} or the like structured data fields and to add such fields when absent, has reduced the number of files missing information by almost 100,000 on Commons. You can help by looking for files with similarly-formatted description pages, and listing them at Commons:Bots/Work requests so that a bot can add the {{Information}} template on them.

At the Amsterdam Hackathon in November 2014, a couple of different models were developed about how artwork can be viewed on the web using structured data from Wikidata. You can browse two examples here and here. These examples can give you an idea of the kind of data that file pages have the potential to display on-wiki in the future.

The Structured Data project is a long-term one, and the volunteers and staff will continue working together to provide the structure and support in the back-end toward front-end development. There are still many things to do to help advance the project, and I hope to have more news for you in the near future. Contact me any time with questions, comments, concerns.

-- User:Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Undone some edits

I removed some of your edits in which you added Property:P27 with value Q668 in some items which are not human. If there are more of such contributions then please find and correct them. Please be more careful in future while editing.--Vyom25 (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Please check your edtis

Hi, you've made a large number of edits in which you added female (Q681072) as property P21 to male persons. The majority of these are obviously wrong. I started to revert them, but now I leave it to you. Please check them again. Thanks. --Csigabi (talk) 07:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Notice of revert

I just reverted your edit to Chancellor of Germany (Q56022) that you made back in 2013 because it's a specific political position, and those are usually capitalized in English. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 18:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Brazilians who died ..

Hi GerardM, you might recall the discussion in the forum about a query on the above.

Here is finally the automated list version for it: Recent deaths in Brazil. --- Jura 04:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Hoi, I copied it and created a page for the Netherlands... I intend to blog about it :) GerardM (talk) 05:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Good idea. I had missed it when he first announced it. Must have zapped when reading its name.

Given that this is the feature we had been waiting for that long ..

BTW, I'd place your list at User:GerardM/Recent deaths in the Netherlands

And well, it still relies on you adding all those DOD to Wikidata  ;) Thanks for that. --- Jura 07:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Here is a more general one: Recent deaths (also at WP). --- Jura 12:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

+ Recently deceased at Wikipedia (I plan to include other than enwiki) --- Jura 07:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Deleting sources

Please, do not delete sources, when you edit something (diff). --Movses (talk) 08:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I delete sources when I change statements when they are wrong. GerardM (talk) 09:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Please look at the statement in question. Your edits didn't do anything other than remove the source. --Yair rand (talk) 09:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Not really. GerardM also changed the value to a more specific one. It doesn't justify the removal of the source, though. I have tried to explain him inappropriateness of deleting the whole statements instead of correcting just their value, but it seems he's not paying much attention to other user's concerns :( On the other hand, I appreciate the improvement that now he's migrating the qualifiers too. --Shlomo (talk) 10:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

GerardM, you really want to say, that this link is wrong for confirmation that Stephen Hawking received Prince of Asturias award for Concord in 1989 ? Do you understand, that you have to remain reference link, instead of deleting it ? --Movses (talk) 11:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The source is not specifying the award that is received. It is too general hence deletion is fine. GerardM (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

It says "Prince of Asturias Award for Concord 1989" in a somewhat large font? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 16:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Given that that was NOT the award specified on Wikidata, it does not matter. GerardM (talk) 17:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

That WAS the award specified on Wikidata and it DOES matter.--Shlomo (talk) 08:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

sweet dreams. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 09:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it did not matter (where I would disagree) but now both the source and wikidata specify so the source should be there.--Saehrimnir (talk) 07:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Could you be so kind and read your opponents' objections before bringing them low on your private blog? I can't see anybody in this discussion questioning your replacing the general item with a more specific one. It is your removal of the source being critisized here. As the source evidences not only the removed general statement, but your specific statement as well, it is one more reason NOT to remove it.--Shlomo (talk) 10:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I do not work in that way. I use tools to add stuff the statement is wrong so I have no qualms removing it. GerardM (talk) 10:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

If you do not read your opponent's objections before writing about them somewhere, I strongly recommend you to start. If you have no qualms removing correct references, I'll have no qualms to ask for a block for you next time you do so.--Shlomo (talk) 10:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

When a statement is changed, the reference is no longer valid. That is a rather black and white issue. Threatening when your arguments do not convince do make you a bully. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 07:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

It's really weird to see that you're talking about others on a other site. It really doesn't make your point stronger and is only hurting the relationship between you and others. You're lack of adding references could be hurting the project, as no-one can verify your additions. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 10:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Adding sources is not possible using the tools that I use. Arguably I have often proposed ways of ensuring quality. Wikipedia is not a source really and, that is what my data comes from. GerardM (talk) 13:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Referring to Black & White (Q4920219) is not a prove and won't make your position any stronger. Neither will do spreading misinformation on your blog, labeling your opponent with defamatory attribute or sending high-toned ironical e-mails. I posted my reasoning here two months ago and I didn't get a reasonable answer since. You just keep parrotting that "the reference was wrong / invalid" despite the fact that anybody can check that the reference is confirming both your specific version of statement and the general version statement you replaced. A source stating that a person was born on December 4th, 1997 is a perfectly valid reference for the statement that "(s)he was born in late 90's of past century", as well as for statement that "(s)he was born on December 4th, 1997". I can't see any reason, why replacing the first statement with the second should invalidate the reference. Even after several "issues" of B&W it seems perfectly logical to me to keep the reference in place and only to change the statement (if necessary, but that's for another discussion).--Shlomo (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)