User talk:GerardM

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

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)

Hello, GerardM. Regarding this, look, five: Sonia Ruiz Raga, Judith S. Birkenfeld, Clara Cuesta Soria, Jezabel Curbelo and María Retuerto Millán. Thanks. --~~~~

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?

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.

Already edited.

Hi there. You've written Malaysia citizenship in Q6150954. Do you have any reference(s) for it? He is an Indonesian.