User talk:GerardM

Jump to: navigation, search

About this board

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

Roniee (talkcontribs)

Hi GerardM, you have been deleting the properties which link the official post of Governor of Jamaica, with the List of Governors of Jamaica. Maybe I am not using the correct Properties (Part of) but I am seeing this exemple on the others governors page. Should I use something else ?

Without this link, in Wikipedia, the Wikidata Item doesn't redirect to the list., and it just shows a (d).

Reply to "Governor of Jamaica"
Nomen ad hoc (talkcontribs)

Hi GerardM! I just received your message. Apologies if the revert seemed rude to you (it wasn't of course my intent)... And no worry, I've matched the prize to the right laureate.

Best regards

Reply to "Alain Gérard"
Jura1 (talkcontribs)
Reply to "comment on WD:AN"
MisterSynergy (talkcontribs)
MisterSynergy (talkcontribs)

GerardM, a comment regarding the same case: I still expect action by you as a response to my WD:AN comment of Friday: You have been relatively active in the past two days, and even edited WD:AN in another case. I thus assume that you are aware of my linked comment for a while now.

So, do you still plan to take action here, and when can I expect this to happen? As I outlined at WD:AN, your comment of Friday morning is inacceptable, and this holds as long as it stands unmodified. If you don’t want to modify it to remove the defamatory speech part, I explicitly consider that you insist on this claim, which is a personal attack against another user. In that case, I will remove it.

Jura1 (talkcontribs)
MisterSynergy (talkcontribs)

You sent an email to me today at ~16:00 CET. This is my response to your email. It is intentionally public, since it does not contain any private information.

Sorry for using common abbreviations in this topic. "WD:AN" is the Administrators' noticeboard, where the case about the dispute is dealt with. I always provided relevant links in my messages.

The problem with your defamatory speech (“… telling others that they are complete idiots …”) is that it clearly attacks User:Russian Rocky's reputation on a personal level, while it does not add anything to the discussion about the label that was in question. If that user had said what you have claimed, he would have been blocked for it—but he didn’t do so. The part of your comment which is in question here was completely inappropriate, even in the heated situation and under generous consideration of the style of activity of the other side in this dispute.

So this phrase as cited above needs to be fixed, and I offer you to do it by yourself as I suggested here. Otherwise I need to do it, and I would have to state that you insist on defamatory speech (i.e. on a personal attack). Your responsibility for your comments does not decay with time.

The label itself seems to be settled indeed. You don’t need to fix anything there.

Other cases at the Administrators' noticeboard or Jura1's comment in this topic do not matter here.

GerardM (talkcontribs)


First: when I send you a mail it is not for you to decide that your answer to a mail may be public. That is a form of abuse.

Second: you agree that the response I got was abusive. While I agree that the word "complete idiot" was not used literally, it is quite obvious that his hostile actions, his disparaging use of English Wikipedia standards, the notion that I am not a native of an English speaking nation is exactly that... intended to make me feel inferior. FYI I have lived in the UK for several years, my colleagues at a UK government organisation indicated that my English was better than theirs.

Third: by threatening with sanctions, you victimise the victim. This guy has not even bothered to add information to his user profile and he is well versed in Wikipedia lore so he got away with it. By insisting that I should make an edit you are abusive.

Fourth: as I indicated before, for me this is about how we treat each other. We do treat each other with hostility. Jura1's comment is a perfect example. He had the audacity to tell me not to edit the [ governors of Vermont]. I am done with them and, as you can see they are much better as a result.

Fifth: I was recently told that I use tools. I am unapologetic about that. It is what made Wikidata possible in the first place. However, when you analyse my work, you will notice that I have always done a substantial amount of manual edits. When I add awards, I often add missing people to complete the list of people who won the award (it is why my watch list is unmanageable). When I added Date of Deaths, I added information like "educated at" "employed at" to fill up not only the data on the person involved but also to the persons they are connected to in that fashion. The objective has always been to enrich the data and make it more informative.

Sixth: if there is one person who documents the work that he does, it is me. I [ blog about everything Wiki] for over many years now. So you could be aware of how I work and what I have learned in the progress.

Finally: for me this has been about how we deal with each other. It can be characterised as abusive, not listening to the arguments of others and then thinking that quit is the same as consensus. When you are interested I will send you PRIVATELY a few other examples of abuse I encountered (you can let me know by mail). Thanks,

MisterSynergy (talkcontribs)

We always communicate publicly, and I see no reason not to do so here. It would in fact be highly problematic if I switched to private communication.

I do explicitly disagree that any of the comments you got by User:Russian Rocky in the edit summaries was abusive, or that their words transported “complete idiot” or anything remotely similar. Revert edit wars typically aren’t friendly as this one wasn’t either, but there is a wide gap between “not friendly” and “abusive”. His actions did not in any way legitimate you to start a personal attack against him. From the administrative viewpoint you made the only inacceptable comment in this case. You apparently insist not to modify it by yourself. Is this correct?

I have no difficulties to ignore comments like Jura1’s in situations like these. We are not going to contract both cases. Furthermore, for the assessment of your comment it is not of relevance what you otherwise achieve at Wikidata. I know that this project means a lot to you, and that you spent great effort in many regards. Yet, “no personal attacks” also applies to power users.

GerardM (talkcontribs)

So be it. It happens that the Wikimedia Foundation does have a way to address abuse.

MisterSynergy (talkcontribs)
Reply to "my WD:AN comment"
Jura1 (talkcontribs)


Please stop deleting random qualifier from items of US governors.

I already spent too much time on cleaning up your previous edit spree.

I know you assume that 6% of edits are erroneous, but don't generalize this from yourself to others.

GerardM (talkcontribs)

I am editing all the US governors and trust me, I am adding more qualifiers than I remove. The ones that I remove are often wrong as they depend on how you count. There is no standard in the ones that I remove and particularly when some have them and others don't I remove them.

Your notion that my quality is below par.. Well, I know my error rate it is as good as any. No need for you to be overly concerned.

Jura1 (talkcontribs)

It's not really important that you edit "all the US governors".

Not sure why people should trust this type of edit as you don't seem to check them before you delete content.

I don't really care if you add twenty other qualifiers that may be redundant. Adding 6% of errors isn't really going to improve things as the removed qualifiers will be missed.

Last time you edited "all US governors", you added wives of governors as governors. Maybe it's preferable that you try to get the list for one state complete.

GerardM (talkcontribs)

I am completing my 25th state and have added territories and stuff. Your approach is insulting. I never did "all US governors" before. Get your own house in order.

Jura1 (talkcontribs)

Maybe you can explain why you delete the ordinal on Q20684288.

If you need diffs from your previous edits, I can supply them, but I think you should already know about them.

GerardM (talkcontribs)

I have explained that they are all too often problematic, they are not consistently entered. So when it suits me in adding consistent information on all governors I delete them, There is no point in repeating the same thing over and over again,.

Jura1 (talkcontribs)

The question is if the ordinal is correct or not. If it is, is this the correct qualifier to enter it.

We don't want it to be missing in some states just because it doesn't "suit" your edit spree. Entering wives as governors is problematic and your comments to someone who cleaned up your trash are inappropriate.

Jura1 (talkcontribs)

Just leave the governors of Vermont as they are if you are unable of merely adding qualifiers. Your content deletions are not helpful

GerardM (talkcontribs)

Well, when i remove stuff, it is arbitrary information that is not consistently applied over all the governorships. You would not know like I do; more than half the governors have been changed.

Jura1 (talkcontribs)

It would be good if you attempted to collaborate with other people editing Wikidata. Why don't you try?

GerardM (talkcontribs)

when you check you will notice that you deleted at least two additional qualifiers .. So why don't you ?

Jura1 (talkcontribs)

I know I end up cleaning up your stuff, but when being asked not to delete content, you could attempt to do so. Expecting that other contributors clean up your errors isn't good collaboration.

GerardM (talkcontribs)

Sorry that you deleted two perfectly fine qualifiers ? Great collaboration. I do not trumpet what I fix. I do a lot of that too. The way you behave is characterised by you being superior.. Well fine if you believe so, it does not get you good collaboration.

Reply to "random content deletions"
Dapifer (talkcontribs)

Is there a motivation for this change?

GerardM (talkcontribs)

A therapy is not what should be used here .. psychiatry is fine

Dapifer (talkcontribs)

Psychotherapy is not just a practice. But it is a science, a health profession. Otherwise "psychology" should be added, but in this case, as far as schizophrenia is concerned, it would perhaps be too ambiguous.

A long work was born for "health specialization". So be more cautious in this type of decision regarding mental disorders.


GerardM (talkcontribs)

It is a health profession. It is however a psychiatrist who does the anamnese. There are other health professions (Q4494684) that are as applicable to people with schizophrenia. They too are based in science and have a positive impact on the future of someone diagnosed with schizophrenia..

Dapifer (talkcontribs)

Only health care professions like psychologists/psychotherapists/psychiatrists can treat mental disorders or the sufferings related to these diseases. The diagnosis can also be made by clinical psychologists (mental reactants are psychological tools), especially in the field of mental deterioration (the priority is neuropsychological evaluation).

Including only psychiatry in the treatment of mental disorders is a risk that wikipedia can not take. This has already been discussed in the modification of the "medical specialization" in "health specialization".

Anyway, good work.

GerardM (talkcontribs)

It is not obvious to me where it is discussed. Having a list of all the professions that may make a difference for a particular affliction is not what we should have. One of the constraints is the method for the diagnosis; this does not apply to psychotherapists nor does it to "ervaringsdeskundigen"

Dapifer (talkcontribs)

Ok. If it is a question of diagnosis, then we can change "psychotherapy" with "psychology". To enclose the field. However, psychotherapy remains a specialized branch also in schizophrenia. Good day (talkcontribs)

Sorry but there is really no point to add a psychotherapy category to schizophrenia. The diagnosis is done 100% of the times in a hospital, in a psychiatric ward. The therapy of this condition is medical (100% of the patients are treated with antipsychotics). Some patients may receive a psychoterapy in addition, but I still do not get why to add it as a separate category. Worldwide, psychoterapy can and is be done by psychiatrists too. If you add psychoterapy (or psychology, which is a too broad of a term), then we should add to acute myocardial infarction thoracic surgery and family medicine as well. Even nursing. There's no end to this, and actually it is a bigger danger to patients/readers to put a psychotherapy in there then to just put psychiatry b/c as stated above the treatment is first of all a pharmacological one. It seems to me you lack knowledge of how these pathologies are managed at an everyday level. No patient with an acute psychosis or a chronic one is sent to a psychologist. Psychiatry is fine as a cat.

GerardM (talkcontribs)

The notion that 100% of the times patients are treated with antipsychotics is flat wrong. Best practice can be found in countries like Finland where often no drugs are used. They typically have a disturbing influence on patients, there effects are sometimes positive the side effects are often huge and disproportional.

Dapifer (talkcontribs)

Do you have any reliable sources for this whole wrong list? Then, which country are you talking about? Is the diagnosis made in the hospital? In fact, the diagnosis of schizophrenia can be done in prison, private practice, clinics, military bases and so on ... what is the source in which 100% of the time it would be carried out by psychiatrists in the hospital? What is the source that mentions 100% of the time only medical care? You're talking about incorrect and non-existent percentages ... but if you find them, publish them, please.

However, if psychotherapy is understood as a practice, then we remove it from this specialization, but include "psychology". I deal with psychology, criminology and neuroscience, I'm certainly not the last one. However, the change I can make and remove psychotherapy, by inserting clinical psychology. Shrinking the field.

Dapifer (talkcontribs)

I would also like to point out that on the English voice Schizophrenia (with quality: "Featured articles"), in the disease infobox template, it is inserted: psychology, in the section "sanitary specialties". It can not, and it is not acceptable, to close the area of competence in this field only to the "psychiatry" that has certainly priority over these disorders. BUT NOT EXCLUSIVITY!

GerardM (talkcontribs)

This is not about English Wikipedia and in the Anglo Saxon world you do not find best practice. (talkcontribs)

You're obviously right, mine wanted to be a simple example. has however, compared to other wikis, many more possibilities of sources. What for example we do not have Italians... (Dapifer dislodged)

GerardM (talkcontribs)

I do not care for sources that protect a practice that is problematic. Sources are fine but sheer volume does not make adequate sourcing. There are no mechanisms to evaluate sources; we do not have ways to weed out the influence of retracted let alone biased sources. (talkcontribs)
  • we Italians do not have
Reply to "schizophrenia"
JerryL2017 (talkcontribs)

Hi Gerhard - I think this item Q43761584 which you recently created is a duplicate of this item Q35852471 . If not then Q43761584 isn't a winner of the Godman-Salvin Medal as this was definitely a Sarah Wanless as per this link I think they should probably be merged? Thanks

GerardM (talkcontribs)

When you are convinced they need to be merged, please do :)

JerryL2017 (talkcontribs)

OK, will do! Thanks

Reply to "Sarah Wanless"
Metrónomo (talkcontribs)
Reply to "Impossible data"
MisterSynergy (talkcontribs)

Hey GerardM, this is not a secret. There is no simple tool to move claims from one property to another, so you need bot code for more sophisticated modifications of the entity. In fact, with bots you can do practically anything in one swoop, as you can occasionally see when a bot creates an item with many statements and label/descriptions in only one edit (examples: many items about scientific articles, have a look into their history).

My so-called script in particular bases on code by Pasleim and uses pywikibot; it can either be executed on Toolforge (which means you need to install and manage pywikibot by yourself), or in the PAWS tool (which has a ready-to-use pywikibot install, but it is not the most stable tool and right now it is again not operational for some days). The script to be executed works in both environments. Once PAWS is running again, I hope that I can send you a link to the source of the script (which is always public in that tool anyway).

Reply to "re to your email"

Structured Commons newsletter, December 13, 2017

MediaWiki message delivery (talkcontribs)

Welcome to the newsletter for Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons! You can update your subscription to the newsletter. Do inform others who you think will want to be involved in the project!

Community updates
Things to do / input and feedback requests
A multi-licensed image on Wikimedia Commons, with a custom {{EthnologyItemMHNT}} Information template. Do you also know media files on Commons that will be interesting or challenging to model with structured data? Add them to the Interesting Commons files page.
Presentations / Press / Events
Presentation about Structured Commons and Wikidata, at WikimediaCon in Berlin.
  • Sandra presented the plans for Structured Commons during WikidataCon in Berlin, on October 29. The presentation focused on collaboration between the Wikidata and Commons communities. You can see the full video here.
Partners and allies
  • We are still welcoming (more) staff from GLAMs (Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums) to become part of our long-term focus group (phabricator task T174134). You will be kept in the loop of the project, and receive regular small surveys and requests for feedback. Get in touch with Sandra if you're interested - your input in helping to shape this project is highly valued!
  • Research findings from interviews and surveys of GLAM project participants are being published to the research page. Check back over the next few weeks as additional details (notes, quotes, charts, blog posts, and slide decks) will be added to or linked from that page.
  • The Structured Commons team has written and submitted a report about the first nine months of work on the project to its funders, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. The 53-page report, published on November 1, is available on Wikimedia Commons.
  • The team has started working on designs for changes to the upload wizard (T182019).
  • We started preliminary work to prototype changes for file info pages.
  • Work on the MediaInfo extension is ongoing (T176012).
  • The team is continuing its work on baseline metrics on Commons, in order to be able to measure the effectiveness of structured data on Commons. (T174519)
  • Upcoming: in the first half of 2018, the first prototypes and design sketches for file pages, the UploadWizard, and for search will be published for discussion and feedback!
Stay up to date!

Warmly, your community liaison, SandraF (WMF) (talk)

Message sent by MediaWiki message delivery - 16:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Reply to "Structured Commons newsletter, December 13, 2017"