Hello, GerardM. Regarding this, look, five: Sonia Ruiz Raga, Judith S. Birkenfeld, Clara Cuesta Soria, Jezabel Curbelo and María Retuerto Millán. Thanks. --~~~~
User talk:GerardM
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Hi, I read https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive/2019/10#QuickStatementsBot_(continued) is the tool currently working? What does it do? Can you link to a video or description of its functionality?
Adding P166 {{Q|3254189}} to items like {{Q|60542}} doesn't seem very desirable: it implies that he received two awards, but {{Q|26837312}} is the same thing. Ghouston (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Can you try to edit the section you wanted to edit only? You keep deleting/overwriting other sections.
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU DO.. It is multiple edits over a longer time
Have a look at the edit of yours I reverted: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Project_chat&diff=1277529319&oldid=1277525110 (on the left side you can see the section you deleted).
Normally, you should have gotten some sort of edit conflict notice. Did you get that? If not, please report the bug at Wikidata:Contact the development team.
When you have that same look, you see the sections you are deleting ..
Did you get an edit conflict notice or not?
Can you repair your edit?
That has nothing to do with your removal of whole sections of text. I do not recall that I got a message. My problem is your notion that a revert is appropriate
Can you fix your edit: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Project_chat&diff=1277529319&oldid=1277525110
No I do not have that expertise
If you can't fix your broken edit, how should I be able to do that?
You are the one who insists on making a shambles worse
I don't think you understand the diff of your edit.
In the meantime, MisterSynergy fixed it for you.
Hi there. You've written Malaysia citizenship in Q6150954. Do you have any reference(s) for it? He is an Indonesian.
Hoi Gerard,
Behalve jij (2017) en een Asturische(?) bot (2019) heeft alleen ik zei de gek een of meer bijdragen geleverd aan een wD-lemma over de winnaar van de Librisprijs 2020 Q37474103 S. M. Kollaard.
Wikipedia zwijgt (nog?) als het graf ondanks enkele rode links (sommige uiteraard van mij...) ;)
Klaas zoals je weet, ik doe niet veel op Wikipedia, vooral schrijf ik geen artikelen. Wel maak ik graag lijstjes zoals "alle Librisprijs winnaars"
Heb ik gemerkt. Hier doe je gelukkig wel het een en ander
Hello. You have been adding recently the entry award received (P166) : Cours Peccot (Q24928594) to a number of pages. These should be suppressed or corrected, as Cours Peccot (Q24928594) is not an award. Moreover, at least on one occasion, on Michael Servetus (Q185914), this was in addition a blatant anachronism. ~~~~
Well actually, there are false friends.. The information is based on Wikipedia.
Don't rely on Wikipedia, it is a bad friend, not reliable. Similarly, don't rely to wikidata for importing to wikipedia. ~~~~
That is beside the point and qualitatively not correct
If you import from Wikipedia you should at least clearly state from which language-page, so that the mistake can be corrected. ~~~~
When a tool does not provide it, then no.
Thank you so much for your cooperation.
When you insist on a point of view, when you obsess about the others being wrong, what do you expect?
A clearly wrong statement is not "a point of view". It is a wrong statement, and should be corrected.
I disagree with you making your statement clearly wrong. People are awarded these lectures and that makes them recipients.
You are beyond hope. People who died in the 16th century cannot give a Peccot lecture in 1951.
That is not the argument. You make it about Wikipedia about how you can not import data from sources. Your arguments sucks. When you choose to revert you enter an argument, when you change erroneous data you find that there is no issue.
If I count correctly, you reverted me three times on Michael Servetus (Q185914) (1511-1553), persisting in your claim that he was « awarded » the cours Peccot in 1951.
You will also see that I removed that statement for what it is worth. It is likely added anew if nobody cares to rectify Wikipedia.
But this is precisely why, when you import something from wikipedia, you should clearly indicate where you imported it from. Even if somebody "cares to rectify wikipedia", how is he going to do it if this information is not available? Carefully read the 54 pages Michael Servetus has in different languages in wikipedia?!
Your point of view is not mine. For me it is one item in a large subset. Quality is never absolute and what you show is a short comming in Wikipedia that has a solution. It is a matter of perspective, I do not care for individual issues like this one is. I care about the 4/6% error rate you find in most lists.
But the shortcoming in Wikipedia has a solution only if one knows where to look. You carefully don't answer the question: where did you import this false claim from?
The solution is in adopting for wikilinks. It is the same solution adopted for interwiki links. In this way, you do not link to text but to a Wikidata item enabling all kinds of functionality. It includes having the same information in Wikidata and other Wikipedias enabling comparison. As to what Wikipedia .. I make use of multiple Wikipedias so I do not know.
Wonderful. So you enter data without being able to justify a source for it. As a matter of fact, how do I know you do have a source at all? (« - I read it in the paper »; « - Which paper ? »; « Oh, that I don’t know: there are too many. »). I think you deserve a medal for your edits.
With 2,617,919 edits, it is a bit much to ask for. It is for me as much work as it is for you to find what page it might be. As is generally known 4 to 6% errors are to be expected by manual edits. The error rate by importing from a Wikipedia has a similar range of errors.. And no it is not about you and yes I could get a medal but I will only get it when people understand the methodology. Thanks
Well, I have been taught publication of a statement engaged the responsibility of the publisher. Apparently, this is not the case anymore. It is considered normal to mechanically publish millions of data without providing any source, without being even able to provide one when asked, on persons one is not interested enough to even know when and where they lived.
I am quite happy to work on an individual item level. I often add references when I think they are appropriate. My problem with this single statement obsession is that when you then ask people to transcend that issue and think bigger, people do not want to know. This meta issue is fairly easy to solve, it takes the same approach as we have in interwiki links. It will improve Wikipedias by between 4 to 6% of all wikilinks..
You prefer to believe what you are taught.. see this as an invitation to think.
You are beyond hope. I give up.
Hey Gerard, you've undone my edit here, but I disagree with your edit summary ("this is the right person"). The person described in Q56807672 is the same as this one here. The image you are trying to add to Q56807672 actually belongs to Q58010966, as I originally indicated in my edit summary. What am I overlooking here?
They are not the same?
No I don't think so. Compare their CVs, it is pretty obvious that they are different.
Hi. Can you please explain this edit of yours?
It was probably linked to a category, a list and was imported into Wikidata
I guess it is wrong. Therefore I took the person out of the concerned Commons cat.
Hoi Gerard,
Ik zag, dat je mijn bewerking hebt teruggedraaid. De reden waarom ik eerder 'schrijver' heb verwijderd is, op nl.wiki (kroeg wikidata) is er een klein project opgestart om het sjabloon authority control toe te voegen bij schrijvers adhv een query met ontbrekende gegevens. Sywert van Lienden en een paar anderen zijn niet te verifieren bij viaf. Dus ook geen isni of nta. Wellicht ben je hiermee geïnformeerd. Als je meent, dat deze insteek niet klopt gelieve daar te reageren. groet, Hank
Dat een VIAF een ISNI of een NTA iets vinden betekent niet dat dat de ultieme waarheid is. Ik maak gebruik van Wikipedia resources die wat anders zeggen. Wanneer je vindt dat ik ongelijk heb kan je iets wijzigen, daar heb ik geen bezwaar tegen, je doet maar maar terugdraaien is anders. Dank, ~~~~
#Durftevragen. Hoezo geen bezwaar tegen wijzigen, maar wel tegen terugdraaien? Van de twee mogelijkheden leek terugdraaien mij het meest transparant, aangezien de aanmaker een notificatie ontvangt, en er is een commentaarregel.
vwb Van Lienden ik blijf er verder vanaf. Er zijn blijkbaar meer waarheden. ~~~~
Als je zoals ik miljoenen edits gedaan hebt, dan kijk je die echt niet na is het alleen hoogst irritant. Wat ik volg staat op mijn volglijst. Begrijp ik neem een categorie.. schrijver en iedereen is een schrijver. Dank,