User talk:GerardM

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

Hi. You are wrong, because a country called Poland did not exist in 1839-1889. In what language are you referring to the article about him? wikipedia is a non-authoritative source. currently there are a lot of errors on Wikidata, in particular, some editors do not know the difference between Ukraine and russia at all, wrote many errors earlier... besides, you just told a something that isn't true. I looked at articles about him on those Wikipedias that I can read and edited (Ukrainian, English, Polish, Russian). Nowhere is it indicated that he was a citizen of Poland, which appeared on the world map in 1918. It seems that you still do not know that information from Wikidata goes to different Wikipedias, and not the other way around.

and you are wrong by insisting on reverting an edit. Much better to just edit it properly. I do not care I care about my peace and quiet

Please correct your mistake. The only thing I insist on is that there is no false information in this item. Thanks. Good luck

Are Complex Creative Systems (Q117382535) and Complex Creative Systems (Q117382521) exactly the same paper?

Dear GerardM,

I hope you are doing well,

I am Kholoud, a researcher at King's College London, and I am working on a project as part of my PhD research, in which I have developed a personalised recommender model that suggests Wikidata items for the editors based on their past edits. I am inviting you to a task-based study that will ask you to provide your judgments about the relevance of the items suggested by our model based on your previous edits. Participation is completely voluntary, and your cooperation will enable us to evaluate the accuracy of the recommender system in suggesting relevant items to you. We will analyse the results anonymised, and they will be published to a research venue.

The study should take no more than 15 minutes.

If you agree to participate in this study, please either contact me at kholoud.alghamdi@kcl.ac.uk or use this form https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSees9WzFXR0Vl3mHLkZCaByeFHRrBy51kBca53euq9nt3XWog/viewform?usp=sf_link

Then, I will contact you with the link to start the study.

For more information about the study, please read this post: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Kholoudsaa In case you have further questions or require more information, don't hesitate to contact me through my mentioned email.

Thank you for considering taking part in this research.

Regards

Please explain this more deeply.

talk about cryptic

Would it be possible to add descriptions on this prize in a few languages you'd probably speak?

just google, that is what I did

Yes, but it is your item.

Consider the amount of items I created, edited. Their point is that they are nodes in a web of information. This item links people through this award. I do not add descriptions becaused automated descriptions are superior.

I see you reverted my removal of FAHMS from the two above women - Q51547027 and Q21537224. I have been unable to discover any reference to their being elected Fellows. I'd appreciate your adding your reference to the entries please.--~~~~

When your considered opinion is that something is wrong, you fix it. From a process point of view, i am happy with my work. When your aim is to get my attention, you have it and I stand by my process. So fix it and I am fine. Bother me and you have this as a result.

Please provide a reference as requested. If I could find one, I would. I am checking their status with the Academy.

The following items are duplicates: Q110653266, Q110653267, Q110653269.

What the source?

This person is not in the database for this award

You roll back without a comment. That is a bother and given no argument it deserved its roll back.

1. My comment "ее нет в базе https://righteous.yadvashem.org"
2. What is the source for adding this award?

Hoi GerardM, zou je deze bewerking nog eens kunnen nazien. Naar mijn weten is Adriaen Paets (1631-1686) in de Republiek geboren in Leiden (of volgens mijn gegevens zelfs in Rotterdam), en dan kies je toch voor een Nederlandse nationaliteit!? Mvg, Mdd

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

Uhm, no.

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.

Please just stop doing disruptive edits such as this one. Fellowship implies membership, as you've already mentioned yourself, so there's no reason for you to undo my edit. If that leads to unnecessary redundancy, that's because of your actions, not mine.

:@Axolotl Nr.733: We utterly disagree and it is not universal where a fellowship implies membership.

You keep not only making disruptive edits but contradicting yourself by doing so. Plus, you've shown to ignore any attempt to meep you half way. Repeatedly removing a statement that is obviously correct is vandalism, you do know that, right?

IMO, the only valid reason to remove this statement would be that a normal membership isn't of public interest and there are no public records of all AAAS members. So I will just pretend that this was your argument, just to close this needless conversation.

There is no need for registering normal membership of any organisation. Consequently when someone is honored with a fellowship, he is awarded a privilege an honour, as a consequence it is an award. In many organisations, one of the benefits for a fellow is that he/she does not need to pay the daily dues. I have added tens of thousands maybe more fellowships as an award in Wikidata and a membership has a start date, perhaps an end date. An award has a point in time. A fellowship has a point in time.

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)

GerardM, why do still do edits such as this one even though you've already been informed that this is a redudant statement? Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 08:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)