User talk:Lesko987a

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Logo of Wikidata Welcome to Wikidata, Lesko987a!

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! Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WikiTree IDs

[edit]

I notice you are adding a large number of WikiTree IDs. In case you are not aware, Wikidata has a bots policy which states

Bots (also known as robots) are tools used to make edits without the necessity of human decision-making.

Could you please explain the human decision-making process that allows you to add these links so quickly? If there isn't a human decision-making process for each edit, please stop edits of this type and proceed to Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot to obtain approval for these edits. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding WikitreeIDs by various methods. All added data is first being validated by few checks, and totally identical is just added, partially identical is looked into and decided if it is a good connection or not. Then i add good connections into wikidata using quick_statements tool. Then i import back data from wikidata and re-validate if everything is ok. I am connecting from two sources.
  • One are links to wikipedia in biography. There is 50K such links. I removed invalid links and got wikidataID for valid ones. Matched that to persons and got 30K possible connections. For those I compare birth and death dates and similarity on name. I connected 16K profiles. The remaining 14K are to be checked in details, since data do not match and error in data must be located (on wikitree or wikidata/wikipedia).
  • Second way is to get all relatives of connected people from wikidata and compare each relative to wikitree relative. And similarly if all data match it is added without much checking and if data match only partially it is visually compared and decided to link or not.
--Lesko987a (talk) 20:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the volume of data, it appears many of these checks are automated rather than a person visually inspecting the various entries. I suggest you bring it up at Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot and see if they think it needs a bot approval or not. The essence of bot approval is that bots have the potential to introduce a large amount of incorrect information if the logic running the bot is not perfect, and it seems like your approach involves a lot of automated logic. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it needs a bot to run. I also don't intend to write one, since I don't know how. The majority of connection is already done. I expect only a few thousand more. Then it is connecting one by one. I consider this initial update with minor additions in the future.
If new statements (dates, locations, names,...) and objects (relatives with connecting statement) would be added to wikidata, that i would consider work for the bot, since it would update data regularly. This might happen some day in the future, if there will be interest on wikidata side. Wikitree has over 12M persons so most of it is not connected to notables on wikidata. My latest estimate is 30-40K.
I also re-import the data after each batch and in import process all errors are identified so I can manually correct them. So there can't be thousand's of errors.--Lesko987a (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This edit of yours is wrong. We as a community have an issue with editors making a large number of rapid edits precisely because mistakes will happen and too often the results are destructive and messy to clean up. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You did the same thing at Q538928. Why would WikiData need you to add links to some website to our entry about a diocese? While I'm sure you're having fun making semi-automated edits (which sound pretty automated to me) it doesn't help the project. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:27, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All fixed. There was cca 100 errors made. Thanks for notification. I would notice this error later today. It was easy fix, and there is no possibility for destructive edits, since I only add P2494.--Lesko987a (talk) 11:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for your awesome work Jerimee (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

[edit]

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future.[survey 1] The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey.[survey 2] The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.


Take the survey now!


You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ↑ This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
  2. ↑ Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

[edit]

(Sorry to write in Engilsh)

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Barnard

[edit]

Thanks for calling my attention to the Find-a-grave ID error on Henry Barnard. I've fixed it. Leschnei (talk) 12:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I am importing FindAGrave data and it caused an error in import. Lesko987a (talk) 12:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WikiTree: Pamplona-29

[edit]

Identyfikator WikiTree = 'Pamplona-29' odnosi się do Urraca Garcés of Pamplona (Q1751873) a nie do Urraca Garcés (Q2620695). Proszę, zwróć na to uwagę. Nurni (talk) 11:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand exactly what you are saying. I made a claim based on reference to wikipedia on this page. Is that not correct? Lesko987a (talk) 11:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikitree id 'Pamplona-29' refers to Urraca Garcés of Pamplona (Q1751873), not to Urraca Garcés (Q2620695). Please, be careful while making batch changes. Nurni (talk) 17:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please, stop adding this statement! https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q2620695&curid=2527397&diff=589603702&oldid=586856842 Nurni (talk) 10:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ups, I did it again. Now I found the correct person for the link. Can you doublecheck if it is the correct one.Lesko987a (talk) 10:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, it seems to be ok now. Nurni (talk) 11:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

[edit]

Thank you for adding Wikitree links to my entries. I would love to learn how to operate a bot, let me know if I can help, or is you can show me how it is done. --RAN (talk) 15:43, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am admin at www.Wikitree.com and I wrote a program, that finds almost certain connections between 2 databases, based on relations and dates in both databases. It is designed only for this data and can't be used for other things. Lesko987a (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

[edit]

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.

Thank you!

WMF Surveys, 18:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey

[edit]

Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.

If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks!

WMF Surveys, 01:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

[edit]

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement.

WMF Surveys, 00:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Community Insights Survey

[edit]

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Lesko987a,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikidata and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 17:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

[edit]

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Lesko987a,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 19:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WikiTree IDs

[edit]

Hi! Just wanted to say thanks for all your work adding WikiTree IDs - I've been using it to help spot probable duplicates for merging based on the recent Peerage upload. So far I've fixed up over 800 merges and used it to spot a few messed-up problem cases. It's strangely satisfying!

I wanted to ask if you have a preference for how we deal with "mistaken people". For example, Thomas Chaloner (Q7788313) has a WikiTree ID marked as "deprecated", because it refers to his cousin Thomas Chaloner (Q24254696) (who has the ID recorded normally). Is it best to leave these in place and deprecated? Andrew Gray (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I can butt in, it only takes a few minutes to create a new Wikitree profile for someone missing one. There will be less confusion in the future if we create the missing ones, so that the wrong one doesn't get added again.
@Andrew Gray: Best is to correct it to proper WikiTreeID. If the profile can't be found on WikiTree, then it should be deleted. I usually connect based on relations and if other data match to a certain point. If invalid relation was also removed, then I will not reconnect that item. If I will reconnect it, then it is best to notify me and I will look for a reason for reconnection and correct it. --RAN (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I want to second this comment. This is going to be a huge assistance in cleaning up the thousands of duplicate peerage items. Gamaliel (talk) 15:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just Chiming in on the the subject of WikiTree IDs: a given item should generally only have one ID, and the item should be a human, not a group of humans. I removed the individual person WikiTree IDs from Hendley family (Q51288095), as they should go on items for the constituent family members, not the family itself. While creating new items is a pain, Relator can help expedite the process. Cheers, -Animalparty (talk) 01:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lesko987a: as you have great experience of connecting with Wikidata and you are from a half open platform i.e. registered users can change most of the profiles do you think WikiTree should benefit from a middle layer a staging area that you can write to/update and wikidata people can give feedback/comments per record....
I see a challenge with Wikidata and > 4000 external properties see more thoughts on T251225#6099628 let me now if you have ideas and/or will do a webhangout. I feel if we could upload metadata for connected profiles to this staging area we could easier compare facts and discuss it etc... and get better control on differencies both from Wikidata and from WIkiTree --> we will easier use the added value of WikiTree when you have better data....
- Salgo60 (talk) 06:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We sent you an e-mail

[edit]

Hello Lesko987a,

Really sorry for the inconvenience. This is a gentle note to request that you check your email. We sent you a message titled "The Community Insights survey is coming!". If you have questions, email surveys@wikimedia.org.

You can see my explanation here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitree errors

[edit]

Hi,

Yesterday I removed some Wikitree IDs which had been incorrectly added to Wikidata pages (details below), but you seem to have put them back again. Could you please revert your edits for these entries and adjust your Quickstatements data so that they aren’t put back?

Thanks! Dogfennydd (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. They are a result of errors on the other pages.
I corrected the causes. Lesko987a (talk) 15:09, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the fantastic job adding the WikiTree links that you're doing! One more reversion that's slipped through: Timothy Knatchbull (Q75383946) is the twin of Nicholas Knatchbull (Q75383948) (Knatchbull-33). Nicholas was killed in the Mountbatten bombing, but Timothy survived (and talks about it eg here). Is there a good way to stop him being re-linked to the WikiTree item for his brother? Jheald (talk) 14:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was a hard one to do. Twin with almost the same name. But I did it. It shouldn't get connected any more Lesko987a (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Hi there,

One more error that keeps on being re-added. Antunes (Q6206318) is a family and so should not be linked to Antunes-67. There is no Wikidata page linking to Q6206318 and so I can’t see why your code is re-adding the link. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to check that the Wikidata item is an instance of human (Q5) before adding a Wikitree link? Thanks, Dogfennydd (talk) 15:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Dogfennydd (talk) 09:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

One more persistent error: Wijewardene family (Q68427836) should not be linked to Wijewardene-2, since the former is a data item for a family not a person.

Thanks! Dogfennydd (talk) 10:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. It shouldn't reappear. Lesko987a (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1500s & 1600s people

[edit]

Hi, in the last two weeks I've been trying to throw together a WikiProject for England and Wales in the 1500s and 1600s: Wikidata:WikiProject EMEW.

It's firstly focussed on places, to partner with a gazetteer that Viae Regiae (Q105547906) are about to start constructing. (That project is still looking for some final participants, if anybody is interested). There's a huge chance to level-up wikidata's quality and coverage of different types of places, across the board.

But obviously people will be of considerable interest too, not least in how they tie the places together.

You probably know wikidata's coverage of people in this period as well as anyone, giving all the work you've been doing with WikiTree. What areas here would you say are currently weakest for this period, or missing altogether, and would benefit the most from attention, if there were some volunteers to give it?

Any thoughts or comments you had about areas to prioritise would be very welcome, at Wikidata_talk:WP_EMEW/People. Thanks!! Jheald (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Very useful input. Jheald (talk) 07:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just added the counts for people with known dates of death (or burial) in the 1500s and 1600s to Wikidata:WP EMEW/People/Identifiers#Genealogical. Surprised that the number for WikiTree now seems to be so close to that for ThePeerage. An impressive signifier of all your matching efforts! I was surprised. But maybe TP has a lot more entries for children etc with no dates? Jheald (talk) 19:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


P1810 in reference or qualifier?

[edit]

Hi Lesko987a,

Thanks for working on better integrating Wikitree. For edits like [7], I wonder if it shouldn't add P1810 as qualifier rather than in the reference. See Q42#identifiers for a few with, e.g. Q42#P691, Q42#P7029, Q42#P5297, Q42#P2722. If you need help, you could ask at Wikidata:Bot requests to have already added ones converted. --- Jura 08:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

spouse (P26)

[edit]

Hi Lesko987a,

Thanks! I noticed you frequently add identifiers to newly created spouse items.

What do you think of Wikidata:Bot_requests#request_to_find_references_for_novalue_statements_in_"spouse"_(P26)_(2021-10-31)? --- Jura 10:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have automated matching for spouses entered on Wikidata. In case of novalue statement, I ignore it on import of WikiData. I do the same for all other novalue statements, since there is nothing I can do about them.
Automatically adding spouses to wikidata is not something I won't do, since the sources on wikitree should be checked manually for something like that. It would also be a never ending task. Lesko987a (talk) 10:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, creations can be tricky and sometimes even existing statements on Wikidata can be problematic.
The question for the bot request is mainly if there is a way to add references to the "novalue" statements. Obviously, on many websites, there is no difference between no information and never married.
BTW I think genealogy is a neverending task and Wikidata (or at least I) like neverending tasks ;)
Still, to make it doable, my threshold at Property_talk:P26/numbers/missing_by_sitelinks is currently 70. --- Jura 11:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikitree has a flag no more marriages and the same one for children. That is set when all relatives are added to the profile. Of course this is set only on some profiles. Lesko987a (talk) 12:48, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed some had "spouses unknown" while others have no mention of spouses at all (e.g. popes). Seems that only a few statements could be referenced with that. --- Jura 12:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening Lesko987a Lesko987a (Lesko987a https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Lesko987a do one for I noticed that you have executed many Wikitree IDs . Would you like to do one for Angelique Rockas https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q23893984?#Thank you Seasons Greetings {{Davidxel (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)}}[reply]

I am only adding wikitreeID for profiles, that are existing on WikiTree.com. Lesko987a (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

wikitree id

[edit]

how does the WikiTree person ID (P2949) identifier you are maintaining work? Is it an external script (bot)? Or is it simply a matter of maintaining the page here https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P2949

? Jerimee (talk) 20:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WikiTree „named as“

[edit]

Hello,

I see you’ve been adding subject named as (P1810) qualifiers as in this edit. It says that the person is named Friedrich Pfeffer von Salomon (1892 - 1961) . But checking the site, the parenthesis does not seem to be intended as the name, in which case it would obviously be wrong anyway. There is a bold heading or first line with just the name, Friedrich Pfeffer von Salomon.

thankw for your work! Karl Oblique (talk) 11:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page name is Friedrich Pfeffer von Salomon (1892 - 1961) which is also in h1 heading. Title is designed for search engines and include some other text. WikiTree always includes dates in the title, since the name repeats a lot during history and the dates are important to distinguish them. Lesko987a (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling of Walter Blandford Waterlow, or Walter Blanford Waterlow (as on the grave)

[edit]

Hello Lesko987a, since you recently added some details here, and coming across an image of the grave which I inserted, I was wondering if the spelling is correct. The user having created this being blocked, would you know how to tackle this? Thank you so much for your time. Lotje (talk) 04:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiTree person ID on name item

[edit]

This is wrong: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q949355&diff=2245723911&oldid=2243587152 Andres Ollino (talk) 14:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Claim was based on item https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q678371 where mother is defined as name Mabel instead of it being a person profile. I will undo the item and prevent future updates. Lesko987a (talk) 14:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hvala! I removed the wrong claim https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q678371&diff=prev&oldid=2253212336 , can you create an item for the mother and connect mother and child? Andres Ollino (talk) 14:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't create or connect wikidata items. I only add WikiTree link to existing items based on extensive data analyses. Lesko987a (talk) 14:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And you add subject named as [9] - thank you! Andres Ollino (talk) 14:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiTree person ID present and sex missing

[edit]

Could you add sex too if it is stated in WikiTree? Andres Ollino (talk) 14:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q98851151&action=history - three years ago you added the WikiTree person ID. Presence of that ID and no claim for sex is causing a constraint violation each time. Andres Ollino (talk) 14:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the database and I could add 200 Male and 124 Female genders where it is missing. I just have to program it.
Would an entry like this https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q119006331 be ok? Lesko987a (talk) 17:27, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. As of 2024-11-08 : 23 missing https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Database_reports/Constraint_violations/P2949&oldid=2271732695#%22Item_sex_or_gender_(P21)%22_violations WikiTreeReview (talk) 10:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiTree person ID missing on existing item

[edit]

https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q4261276&diff=prev&oldid=2271402958 - I saw it on the Geni-record https://www.geni.com/people/Nikolai-Ivanovich-von-L%C3%BCders/6000000003454150297 in the about section which was changed last time 2022-06-22 - maybe you find a way to improve the algorithm to find matches? Would be nice if more human items having Geni person ID would also have WikiTree person ID Deftwomb23 (talk) 15:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do connections based on relations, names and dates in wikidata. I do not use geni at all. Lesko987a (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion was to improve your algorithm. Why was the match not found here? WikiTreeReview (talk) 10:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I use label as primary name matching and I use only the English label. And I also check the dates and there is a 10 year difference between wikidata and wikitree birth date. That is the reason it was not connected automatically. Lesko987a (talk) 11:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiTree person ID on couple item

[edit]

and you editing it https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q1268041&diff=2257745803&oldid=2255374213 . Listed at CV page since 2024-10-03 https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Database_reports/Constraint_violations/P2949&oldid=2255698473#%22Type_human_(Q5),_human_biblical_figure_(Q20643955),_fictional_human_(Q15632617),_character_that_may_or_may_not_be_fictional_(Q21070598)%22_violations WikiTreeReview (talk) 10:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add the claim itself. It was added by someone and I just added the qualifier: subject named as (P1810) for it. That is a different automation. In adding the ‎claim WikiTree person ID (P2949) I do check it for human (Q5). Occasionally I do manually correct false instances. Let's say twice per year or if something breaks in the automation routines. Lesko987a (talk) 11:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lesko987a&oldid=2271843126"