Topic on User talk:GerardM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Sources for constituencies being in the districts who are in the regions... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ghana_Parliament_constituencies
• This is the list I maintained about Ghanaian parliamentairians way before you came along. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GerardM/Members_of_the_Parliament_of_Ghana

And stop with your constant ill advised insults.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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