User talk:GZWDer
User page Discussion
(Redirected from User talk:GZWDer (flood))
Welcome to Wikidata, GZWDer!
Wikidata is a free knowledge base that you can edit! It can be read and edited by humans and machines alike and you can go to any item page now and add to this ever-growing database!
Need some help getting started? Here are some pages you can familiarize yourself with:
  • Introduction – An introduction to the project.
  • Wikidata tours – Interactive tutorials to show you how Wikidata works.
  • Community portal – The portal for community members.
  • User options – including the 'Babel' extension, to set your language preferences.
  • Contents – The main help page for editing and using the site.
  • Project chat – Discussions about the project.
  • Tools – A collection of user-developed tools to allow for easier completion of some tasks.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask on Project chat. If you want to try out editing, you can use the sandbox to try. Once again, welcome, and I hope you quickly feel comfortable here, and become an active editor for Wikidata.
Best regards! --Bill william compton (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  1. User talk:GZWDer/2013
  2. User talk:GZWDer/2014
  3. User talk:GZWDer/2015
  4. User talk:GZWDer/2016
  5. User talk:GZWDer/2017
  6. User talk:GZWDer/2018
  7. User talk:GZWDer/2019
  8. User talk:GZWDer/2020
Improving lexemes
Hi. I see you have been adding a bunch of vietnamese lexemes lately. I have a few questions:
Cheers--So9q (talk) 04:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I have improved them. These lexemes are created manually. It is obviously not possible to create all lexemes to create (say 2000*50 "core" lexemes) but it needs times to develop a mature bot and it is not easy to find a usable source either. I do not use Telegram.--GZWDer (talk) 08:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree it takes time to create good bot code. It has taken me some time to program Wikidata:LexUse but I'm quite happy with the outcome and the usage examples on Swedish lexemes has doubled since I wrote it. :D I can really recommend wikidataintegrator. The author is very easy to communicate with and the library is good quality.--So9q (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
WikidataIntegrator is a heavy-weight tool and if we only want to import lexemes with specific data it is not necessary to use. However, the more important thing is that we need an agreement about the structure of an lexeme of some languages (this is why previously imported lexemes have no forms and senses - they are intended to be filled later once an agreement is reached).--GZWDer (talk) 18:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Review of your bot actions and bot requests posted in Wikidata channel in telegram today
Hi. Since you are not in Telegram I just wanted to notify you about this here: "I found this: -> lost botflag for the flood account on 7 August 2020 Here is the details on the request for import of lexemes: Mahir blocked the bot from the Lexeme namespace forever on 3 nov 2020 after the user went ahead importing lexemes without the support of the community first, see
There are a lot of concerns for the current and past proposals for bot requests by this user. See the latest by Pintoch 30 december 2020 near the bottom: "I still oppose this, as I am not confident the operator can respect the views of the community on this. General lack of trust in them given the history in this area."
It seems to me from reading these pages that GZWDer is really trying to mold their ideas/requests to fit the community, but I get the impression that they still have a long way to go before trust is (re)established.
This comment from Jura on a recent bot request sums it up: "Can you do a sum up of recently raised issues and provide ways we can check that they are fixed? You can't just open a new bot request and expect people re-repeat every problem you are meant to fix every time."
So basically the users in the above pages do not trust GZWDer to clean up the mess the bot might create. I think it's wise to ask GZWDer to clean up their previous botmess first and then when good standing has been reached then we can discuss further bot request ideas for improving Wikidata. Until then any request should be denied IMO."
Good luck with the clean up--So9q (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
@So9q: Any users who concerns about specific edits please post at User:GZWDer/issues so that I can see how much the issues are.--GZWDer (talk) 18:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
@So9q: As I do not use Telegram, please ping any participants of Telegram chats here or direct them to the User:GZWDer/issues page.--GZWDer (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
done--So9q (talk) 08:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
@So9q: I have closed the first issue. I will start fixing more issues via semi-automatic tools with main account (if the flood account is still blocked) on Monday unless User:Multichill said otherwise. Fixing of some issues may require discussion and can not be worked on currently, such as this one.--GZWDer (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Unauthorized bot User:GZWDer (flood)
The bot account User:GZWDer (flood) got it's bot flag removed last year by User:Ymblanter so it's no longer authorized to operate here. Please get it authorized again before doing any more edits. Multichill (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
An issue is users raised concerns at requests Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/RegularBot 3 and I have responsed to them, but they does not reply further. This makes no helps about getting an approval.--GZWDer (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
That's unfortunate, but that's not the account I'm referring too. A bot flag is a statement of trust: Trust to do correct edits, trust to not abuse it, trust to fix issues, trust that you will clean up the mess that might be caused by a robot, etc.
It looks like multiple people lost that trust in you to the point that the authorization was revoked. It's going to be hard to regain that trust. Running an unauthorized bot (or running a bot under your main account) will only make matters worse. Multichill (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
@Multichill: I would prefer other users to summerize issues (or mess) at User:GZWDer/issues so that they may see how the issues got fixed. Talk page threads are not permanent.--GZWDer (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
As a side note, we need to define good practices of (semi)automatic editing. Many users are doing semi (or fully) automatic edits (e.g. imports) without any approval, and we does not have a clear distinction between tools-aided edits (e.g. Mix'n'Match) and semi-automatic ones.--GZWDer (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
You decided to do edits with the unauthorized bot account so I changed the block to a complete block. Multichill (talk) 11:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
@Multichill: Can I use this account for fixing issues only? I am not planning to do other edits until issues are resolved. Alternatively you may provide other routes to resolve the problem.--GZWDer (talk) 13:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
@Multichill, So9q: As a note: I am fixing existing issues but am not certain what is considered acceptable by community. Some issues such as these 900 items are not easily fixable without automatical tools.--GZWDer (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi again. I have a concrete suggesting of how you can go forward with semi-automated edits and slowly build up your reputation again. Do you want it?--So9q (talk) 06:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
@So9q: I need a formal statement about semi-automated edits from @Multichill: first. Note to make user contributions readable I prefer to use the GZWDer (flood) account as legitmate alternative account for all semi-automated edits, even without bot flag (and I did it for some times).--GZWDer (talk) 08:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand. If your user account is still unblocked, why can't you just use that. A bot account is for fully automated edits (only if you ask me). That's why we have an approval process and extra rules. It's possible and allowed to do semi-automated edits with a user account (I use LexUse with mine for example). Are you willing to hear my suggestion now?--So9q (talk) 12:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
The tools or scripts may be run in main account, but 1. as I check my contribution, it is not easy to differ manual edits from ones produced by bots; 2. Multichill does not recommand running them on main account.--GZWDer (talk) 12:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Items with mismatched ORCID and name
See Fluorescence and Multiphoton Imaging for Tissue Characterization of a Model of Postmenopausal Ovarian Cancer (Q92079503). It has author serial #1 whose name matches author names string serial #2. I followed the author name for serial # (Travis W. Sawyer (Q91471773). The ORCID for that item is wrong; it belongs to another named person. Strange, but that ORCID actual owner (Travis W. Sawyer) should be the article's #1 author. I don't know how your list that you used to create items, but it was corrupted. I have found for or five items where the ORCID doesn't belong to them. It's frustrating when I run ORCIDator to put disambiguate authors based on what they have in their ORCID and the names don't match (and ORCID fails.) I've corrected the error, but I hope you'll take the take to investigate the history of these items.
I'm not sure what you need to go and isolate your bot's failures, particularly given these errors were made so long ago. It may be irreparable. I certainly hope you've improved your bot so it doesn't continue these errors. I know they may be a small fraction of your bot's output, but they still create problems with the data that are hard to uncover.
Thanks for your work to add content. Trilotat (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I have a suggestion for a solution. Remove all author information from this corrupted dataset. We keep the article item. In this case the author linked from the article was missing an orchid despite it being stated in the source at
That gives me the impression me that this import was not carefully considered before being rushed into Wikidata. I'm generally in favor of deleting and reimporting rather than try to clean up a mess like this. If anyone is willing to run a clean up bot I'm all ears, until then I suggest we delete all incorrect statements and someone else will import correctly later on.
If orchid is missing on some of the authors it might be a good idea to contact the source and ask them to fix it instead of creating items for authors in WD with no external ID like orchid. How does that sound?--So9q (talk) 06:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
@Trilotat: It is frequent that someone claims other's (with same name) paper as their own contribution; in my memory a tenure professor was fired for doing so. See User_talk:LargeDatasetBot/archive#Bad_data_in_Orcid​; if you see any ORCID records that does not refers to one single person, please report it to ORCID so that ORCID may lock their record.--GZWDer (talk) 08:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
The error is in the source for Q91471779 where one author's ORCID is linked to another author. The author item Q91471773 was then created from the ORCID but using the source where it was used incorrectly. When Q92079503 was created it was just matched to the existing item based on ORCID. Comparing the names in the source with the names in the items would find some of these errors, although sometimes it will be the same person just a different name. If it's a corrupted dataset it could affect any part of it, not just the author information. More likely it occasionally has incorrect data, similar to most used in Wikidata. Peter James (talk) 12:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
How did you connect ORCID to Q91471777
Can you tell me the logic/source you used to connect the ORCID to this author? I generated an item for Jennifer Barton (Q104805370), the confirmed author of Evaluation of segmentation algorithms for optical coherence tomography images of ovarian tissue (Q91471779). I created a new item because I couldn’t confirm they were same person. You generated the scholarly article Q91471779 and connected it to Q91471777 with an ORCID; if I knew your logic for assigning that ORCID we could connect that ORCID to Q104805370. If you can clarify, please let me know and I’ll disambiguate. I’ve connected many items to the other person so please allow me to do the disambiguation. Thanks, Trilotat (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
here is the source of the data and you can see the ORCID is assigned to the wrong author. One article is only imported once and I did not see any other articles by Sawyer. Note this bot is not able to find authors without ORCID.--GZWDer (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
It appears to be correct - unless they (or the university or the publisher) submitted the ORCID of another person with the same name instead of their own. It's the other ORCID there that is assigned to the wrong author. Peter James (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
EuropePMC have an "claim author" tool, and people may make errors claiming others' work.--GZWDer (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
After MGP, how about AcademicTree?
You've done a great job importing MGP information to Wikidata. Have you considered doing the same kind of import for Academic Tree (Academic Tree ID (P2381))? --Bender235 (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
As there would be large number of potential duplicates, we need to spend some times matching existing items first.--GZWDer (talk) 06:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Is there no way to match advisor-advisee pairs from MGP to Academic Tree data? --Bender235 (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
No yet.--GZWDer (talk) 20:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I see. I hope you consider it in the long run, though. Apart from that, there is also the RePEc Genealogy, based on RePEc Short-ID (P2428). Another source to keep in mind. Cheers. --Bender235 (talk) 03:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
A follow-up: there's also the AstroGen project specifically for astronomers and astrophysicists. Importing all entries would, as of now, certainly also create many duplicates, but since many of them include ORCID iD (P496) (such as here) and/or ISNI (P213) (such as here), could you run your bot to import AstroGen ID (P8880) based on matches with existing ORCID iD (P496) on Wikidata? --Bender235 (talk) 21:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi GZWDer, if you think OS is needed, please contact an OSer. Personally, I'd have done with mere deletion and obviously not requested it there. Thanks. --- Jura 13:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
An OSer is pinged in edit summary.--GZWDer (talk) 14:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Somehow I doubt that works. --- Jura 15:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
To avoid the Streisand effect, it is still recommended not to request removal of private information in public venue.--GZWDer (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Bulk deletion request
See this request. Greetings, --Dick Bos (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Three-way author mismatch
The current version of George K C Wong (Q91935629) seems to confuse three people: the label is "George K C Wong", while "Philippe Bijlenga" (for whom we have Philippe Bijlenga (Q42305437)) is listed as an alias (due to a merge from Q91935643 via QS batch 38147), and the ORCID points to an entry under "Jose Suarez". All of this suggests that your workflows for these matters would benefit from close inspection. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
@Daniel Mietchen: A simple investigation found that: [1] and [2], the author "George K. C. Wong" linked to ORCID 0000-0003-0548-9936 [3] and [4], the corresponding author "Philippe Bijlenga" also linked to ORCID 0000-0003-0548-9936. So @ArthurPSmith: should we ask ORCID to disable such ID?--GZWDer (talk) 08:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Wow, that's a mess. Do you know why your code merged those two people? Anyway, ORCID should definitely be notified that George K. C. Wong appears to be using this ID that has a very different name. GZWDer are you willing to do that? Click on "Help" in the bottom right, then "Contact Us" and select the right option (maybe "Other" in this case) and fill in the form. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
The likely situation is (1) the bot processed George K. C. Wong/0000-0003-0548-9936 and there are not an item for such ORCID; (2) the bot created a new item for such information; (3) the bot processed Philippe Bijlenga/0000-0003-0548-9936, but due to query service lag, the bot does not found the new item and created one (there is a LRU cache but the entry may be purged by other ORCIDs); (4) the bot created another item for that ORCID; (5) these two items have the same ORCID and are merged.--GZWDer (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Both articles have a list of authors and collaborators and Suarez is the first name in the collaborators, so a more likely explanation is that the ORCID was added in the wrong place. Some items that now link to Q91935629 should link to either Q42305437 or an item for Jose I Suarez. Peter James (talk) 09:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
[WMF Board of Trustees - Call for feedback: Community Board seats] Meetings with the Wikidata community
The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees is organizing a call for feedback about community selection processes between February 1 and March 14. While the Wikimedia Foundation and the movement have grown about five times in the past ten years, the Board’s structure and processes have remained basically the same. As the Board is designed today, we have a problem of capacity, performance, and lack of representation of the movement’s diversity. Our current processes to select individual volunteer and affiliate seats have some limitations. Direct elections tend to favor candidates from the leading language communities, regardless of how relevant their skills and experience might be in serving as a Board member, or contributing to the ability of the Board to perform its specific responsibilities. It is also a fact that the current processes have favored volunteers from North America and Western Europe. In the upcoming months, we need to renew three community seats and appoint three more community members in the new seats. This call for feedback is to see what processes can we all collaboratively design to promote and choose candidates that represent our movement and are prepared with the experience, skills, and insight to perform as trustees?
In this regard, two rounds of feedback meetings are being hosted to collect feedback from the Wikidata community. Two rounds are being hosted with the same agenda, to accomodate people from various time zones across the globe. We will be discussing ideas proposed by the Board and the community to address the above mentioned problems. Please sign-up according to whatever is most comfortable to you. You are welcome to participate in both as well!
Also, please share this with other volunteers who might be interested in this. Let me know if you have any questions. KCVelaga (WMF), 14:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Unsourced claim, again
Hi. About mendelevium (Q1898) and element symbol (P246), and your [5] revert.
As I wrote with my revert: You did not source this claim, which is otherwise unknown nor common. Then you did revert *without providing a source*. The Help-link does not base or motivate your claim. And, I must say: that response is very paternalistic. I strongly suggest you comply with basic Wiki quality level (instead of editwarring with empty es's). -DePiep (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
@DePiep: I added a source. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Descriptions on imported drinks etc from your flood bot
Hi se Could you run a batch and add descriptions to every single item your bot ever added that has no English description? Thanks in advance 😃--So9q (talk) 06:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
@So9q: Currently you can make a list using PetScan (which supports filtering items without English descriptions) and add descriptions using QuickStatements. Previously there is a tool called Descriptioner, but this tool is no longer online.--GZWDer (talk) 06:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip 😃 Could you fix it? I'm on mobile and my todo list is a mile long 😅.--So9q (talk) 06:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Question regarding "#invoke:Property"
Hi, I was going to add a new property (The Mountaineers Routes & Places ID (P9383)) to the Oregon properties. When I went to edit the template I saw it has the command "#invoke:Property navigation|navbox|Oregon." Does that automatically add properties that have been tagged as Oregon properties? If not, how do I go about adding a property to a page like that? UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 03:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I got help on Telegram, so I know now how to add properties to state lists. UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 00:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
I have added a notice.--GZWDer (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Problem concerning Just Sports Stats ID (P3566)
As you were the creator of the proposal for Just Sports Stats ID (P3566), I wish to inform you of this talk about it here. Any help or suggestion would be much appreciated. Thanks ! --Cortomaltais (talk) 14:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Call for participation in the interview study with Wikidata editors
Dear GZWDer,
I hope you are doing good,
I am Kholoud, a researcher at the King’s College London, and I work on a project as part of my PhD research that develops a personalized recommendation system to suggest Wikidata items for the editors based on their interests and preferences. I am collaborating on this project with Elena Simperl and Miaojing Shi.
I would love to talk with you to know about your current ways to choose the items you work on in Wikidata and understand the factors that might influence such a decision. Your cooperation will give us valuable insights into building a recommender system that can help improve your editing experience.
Participation is completely voluntary. You have the option to withdraw at any time. Your data will be processed under the terms of UK data protection law (including the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018). The information and data that you provide will remain confidential; it will only be stored on the password-protected computer of the researchers. We will use the results anonymized (?) to provide insights into the practices of the editors in item selection processes for editing and publish the results of the study to a research venue. If you decide to take part, we will ask you to sign a consent form, and you will be given a copy of this consent form to keep.
If you’re interested in participating and have 15-20 minutes to chat (I promise to keep the time!), please either contact me on or use this form with your choice of the times that work for you. I’ll follow up with you to figure out what method is the best way for us to connect.
Please contact me using the email mentioned above if you have any questions or require more information about this project.
Thank you for considering taking part in this research.
7 potential classical music properties to propose
@GZWDer, Pintoch, Kolja21: since you all proposed FAST ID (P2163), RISM ID (P5504), and Library of Congress authority ID (P244), respectively, FYI there are a few potential properties that could use proposing @ en:Template talk:Authority control#Several potential classical music properties (FAST, RISM, LCCN are the only currently-existing properties in that thread), namely:
  1. Bach Digital (Q19835087)
  2. Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis (Q214203)
  3. International Standard Musical Work Code (Q949026)
  4. Deutsch catalogue (Q1201890)
  5. Berlin State Library (Q170109)
  6. Zahn number (Johannes Zahn (Q78273))
  7. Neue Bach-Ausgabe (Q950630)
Tom.Reding (talk) 11:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
@Tom.Reding: hello, I did not propose any of these properties :) − Pintoch (talk) 09:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
@Pintoch: how could I find out who did? You created the discussion page so I naturally thought it would've been you who proposed it. Presumably, I'm also wrong about the other 2... Anyway, I'm just trying to draw the attention of editors who would be inclined to make these proposals since I don't have any experience/desire to do so. —Tom.Reding (talk) 10:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
@Tom.Reding: To find out who proposed a property, you can:
Let me know if anything is unclear. − Pintoch (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
what is Q65402743
Can you add anything to this? You created it but it's an empty item except for the site link (which has too little info for me to even guess a instance of (P31). Trilotat (talk) 01:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Is LargeDatasetBot still working?
Hi. It seems LargeDatasetBot is stopped for a long time. It is a great bot. Can it restart again? Kanashimi (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
@Kanashimi: This may be restarted at any time, but I tend to wait for more input in Wikidata:Requests_for_permissions/Bot/So9qBot​.--​GZWDer (talk) 13:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the comment. Kanashimi (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
ORCID error with name/ORCID mixup.
An interesting error occured for this edit: "Finn C Nielsen" and 0000-0001-9786-7193, but 0000-0001-9786-7193 refers to Mette Dandanell Nielsen. — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 09:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
@Fnielsen: In [6], the ORCID is associated to the wrong author.--GZWDer (talk) 02:13, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
At Property:P2482 the scheme for the ID has changed. For Babe Ruth (Q213812), for example, it switched from "9dcdd01c" to "babe-ruth", but the old scheme still works. Can someone figure out how to go from one scheme to the other. For Clark Calvin Griffith (Q1095705) I had to use the url because I cannot figure how to find the old alphanumeric value from the new alphabetic value. --RAN (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Maiden name vs. married name
For the Geni import, you seem to be importing women by their married name, would it be better to import women by their maiden name? That way all the children have the same surname, and it is easier to spot errors. --RAN (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
OK, I will add maiden name as an alias.--GZWDer (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Question about an edit by LargeDatasetBot
Hi GZWDer, I just spotted an issue with an edit made by LargeDatasetBot back in December 2020. In this edit it changed the venue from Radiocarbon (Q15761330) to npj Science of Food (Q50817369). It also removed Paula Reimer (Q33083290) as an author and added a list of authors who don't appear in the list of contributors for the journal article.
It looks to me like the bot might have confused this paper with something else as the topics and authors are very different. I wanted to check what you thought before I undo the edit, and whether there may be other items which have similar issues. Richard Nevell (talk) 09:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I have reverted this edit. Such data was imported from European PubMed Central, which has now corrected the data.--GZWDer (talk) 14:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Improving matching of new articles with items
Hi, you might be interested in commenting on phab:T290718 to improve matching between new Wikipedia articles and Wikidata items, which I'm proposing as an Outreachy project. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

TP upload label fix, GZWDer (flood) cleanup
Hi GZWDer,
There is quite some time since the upload and the issue was first mentioned, but I still find malformed labels, e.g.
These can lead to duplicates.
If you think these shouldn't be fixed, but Help:Label changed instead, please bring it up on project chat. --- Jura 11:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Geni import stopped working
I seem to be getting an error during the Geni import: TypeError: 'NoneType' object is not subscriptable
<​ipython​-​input​-​28​-​eefc8bb992ad​> in dogeni(id, anf) 152 cur_alias​.​append​(​fmdata​[​'first_name'​]​+​' '​+​fmdata​[​'maiden_name'​]) 153 cur_alias=[i for i in cur_alias if i!=fmname]--> 154 curitem​=​geni_get_or_create​(​cfmid​,​fmname​,​nextgender​,​""​,​cur_alias​) 155 if (curitem,old_id) not in p40: 156 if int​(​old_id​[​1​:])​<​96000000 and int​(​curitem​[​1​:])​<​96000000​:​<​ipython​-​input​-​28​-​eefc8bb992ad​> in geni_get_or_create​(​id​, name, gender, desc, alias) 76 },"type": "statement","rank": "normal","references": []}] 77 ip​=​pywikibot​.​ItemPage​(​pywikibot​.​Site​(​'wikidata'​, 'wikidata'))---> 78 ip.editEntity(data, summary​=​"semi-automatic Geni import") 79 geni_items[id] 80 return
Germartin1 (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Deprecated PubMed codes
Hi, could you comment edits like [7], [8], [9]. Why added codes are marked as deprecated? — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
They have the same DOI (or, probably the DOI in EuropePMC is wrong), but the title is different. So I add them to prevent reimporting them in the future. In many cases they are truly the same (some also have another item that should be merged), but I have no time to check them.--GZWDer (talk) 02:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Yo! Methinks your bot produces doubles of people. Sample at hand is Q102117911, recently created by your bot and doubling Q63157011. Maybe, you'd like to roll it back on your workbench for review. Yotwen (talk) 07:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC) PS: Thank's for your effort, anyway.
I've also had to merge a number of items from the Mathematics Genealogy Project this week. Gamaliel (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Last edited on 24 September 2021, at 19:00
All structured data from the main, Property, Lexeme, and EntitySchema namespaces is available under the Creative Commons CC0 License; text in the other namespaces is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Privacy policy
Terms of Use
 Home Random  Nearby  Log in  Settings  Donate  About Wikidata  Disclaimers
WatchHistoryContributionsEdit  User groups  Logs  Page information  Permanent link  What links here