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?
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Reply to "Sarah T. Roberts"
Reply to "Sami Sabit"
Reply to "sywert van Lienden"
Reply to "Takuo Aoyagi"
Reply to "Problem with an item you created"
Reply to "Desktop improvements prototype"
Reply to ""Nasiebhoesein F. Moesafierhoesein" (Q17269979)"
Reply to "Raman Skirmunt alma mater"
Reply to "Special:Diff/1049672454"
Reply to "Victoria Braithwaite"
About this board
Previous discussion was archived at User talk:GerardM/Archive 1 on 2015-08-10.
Sarah T. Roberts
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.
sywert van Lienden
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,
I removed the cause-of-death of COVID-19 that you added to Takuo Aoyagi, and thought I'd leave a note to clarify why. Although the nytimes includes him in their coronavirus coverage (as the developer of the pulse oximeter), they say in the article that his cause of death was unknown. I didn't find any reliable source giving a specific cause of death. A japanese obit listed the non-specific cause as "old age", if I understood its google translate correctly.
Problem with an item you created
Can you take a look at this item you created:
It is an instance of human, but has a description that is an article with a DOI.
Desktop improvements prototype
Thanks for taking the time to participate in the user feedback round for our desktop improvements prototype. This feedback is super valuable to us and is currently being used to determine our next steps. We have published a report gathering the main takeaways from the feedback and highlighting the changes we’ll make based on this feedback. Please take a look and give us your thoughts on the talk page of the report. To learn more about the project overall and the other features we’re planning on building in the future, check out the main project page.
"Nasiebhoesein F. Moesafierhoesein" (Q17269979)
Hallo GerardM, er bestaat ook een Frits Moesafierhoesein (Q76314044). Kan je eens zien welke kan worden verwijderd? Thnks.
Raman Skirmunt alma mater
There aren't any links to sources that Raman Skirmunt studied at university in English Wikipedia.
The question was already discussed User talk:Hanylka#Alma mater Скирмунта
Well I have a source, and that is the source where you may discuss it further
How is "phonetic symbols in Unicode" a Unicode block?
Hello, a fellowship is a certain membership status. Therefore, a fellow is always a member. That's what the description of Fellow says, too. Plus, Fellow of the Linnean Society of London is defined as a membership (Q20006438) only.
I know that it is more common in WD to list fellowships as an award, but I think that misses its character. Being granted a fellowship via an election by other fellows is a distinction, but, IMO, not an award. Regards
When you consider the considerable number of fellowships and how they are recorded in Wikidata, you have an opinion and it is not how we do this.
I have given you a rationale for my opinion. Being a fellow implies membership. Are you willing or able to explain your opinion to me, or is it just "how we do this"?
there are orgs where there is no membership except that fellows choose fellows in recognition. Also for the orgs where there is a fellowship and a membership, people start being a member on a different date from being a fellow.
The Linnean Society isn't one of them, however. Plus, a fellowship in such a society lasts for a whole lifetime, while a Guggenheim Fellowship, for instance, usually lasts for only a year. So using property P580 (start time) instead of P585 (point in time) is more appropriate as well.
This is a warning. I gave you the opportunity to explain your action, you didn't. So please stop vandalizing this page, thank you.
The point is: You still haven't explained why "Fellow of the Linnean Society of London" in particular, and not just anything containing the word "fellow", is an award.
To elaborate on this: Being a "fellow of..." is an attribute of a person. An award, on the other hand, is an item, a thing. So if it was an award, it would be called "Fellowship in the Linnean Society of London". That's the difference to, say, a Guggenheim Fellowship. Got it?
Never heard about antonyms? There is the jolly good fellow, there are the organisations where fellows is synonym with member, there are the fellows that gained a stipend to do some research and there are the fellows that have been recognised for the quality of their work.
In the way you erroneously treat fellow you make it a synonym with member AND you express it with a date and the qualification of fellow. Given that the Linnean society includes members the date when someone becomes a fellow is NOT the date when he becomes a fellow.
As to a warning. Why, this is an asynchronous conversation I may choose when to answer. Please consider yourself and your actions, words like vandalising are equally applicable to you,
You keep contradicting yourself in a way that makes it senseless to even answer you. "[T]he date when someone becomes a fellow is NOT the date when he becomes a fellow."?? Please try to find a consistent position on this topic, then we can have a discussion.
first you become a member THEN you may become a fellow
1., you're still missing the point, that is whether being a fellow of the Linnean Society constitutes a type of membership or not. That's a simple question, for which there's a simple way to answer: Go to the society's website, and read that "there are three levels of membership: Fellows, Associates and Student Associates." Pretty straightforward, isn't it? You haven't given any rationale that could overwrite that statement.
2., by using the qualifier "subject has role" (P2868), it's absolutely clear that the date (year) given marks the beginning of the fellowship, not of a regular membership that may have existed before. Plus, if you claim that Victoria Braithwaite must have been member before she could have been elected fellow, then why do you want to delete that membership from the data set?
3., I explicitly cited your statement that "the date when someone becomes a fellow is NOT the date when he becomes a fellow", yet you still seem not to realize that this makes no sense, obviously. You may consider this to be a small typo, but it pretty much undercuts your whole point if you mix up the very two things (fellowship and membership) you want to treat separately, and then don't even realize it even if I explicitly point it out for you.
Given that you can not say make me a fellow, you are awarded that destinction, your argument is moot.
Free application isn't a requirement for using P463 (member of). You cannot apply for membership in the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, either.
and consequently a membership has the name membership but is in fact an award.