Levana Taylor

Bonjour :)

penses-tu qu'il puisse s'agit de John Luard (Q18527229) ?

Bien cordialement, --Hsarrazin (talk) 13:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Oui, c'est possible, mais pas certain. Le Curran Index dit, "Possibly John Luard (1790-1875), army officer, author, and artist" -- je vais lier les deux noms avec said to be the same as (P460). Merci! Levana Taylor (talk) 14:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

When DarrylLundy moves items from the "need to be fixed" to the "already fixed column", it means he made the correction to his Peerage database, but it may take up to a week to show up online. --RAN (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ah, yes, thanks. I was thrown off by the change in the page structure. Got things in the right place now. Levana Taylor (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

You may want to add descriptions instead of labels. Also please do not have "()".--GZWDer (talk) 02:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Argh! You caught me in the midst of a process that didn't go right. I am about to add the labels, and yes, I was intending those to be descriptions instead of labels. Quickstatements is slow but I'll have it done in half an hour. Levana Taylor (talk) 03:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Greetings,

I noticed your message on Wikidata project chat page, which led me to look up your profile. Thank you for all the hard work!

I’m reaching out to you because I’m working on a research project about understanding what motivates editors like you to contribute to Wikidata. We’re also interested in learning about how you feel your contributions are being used outside of Wikidata. Since you are such an active community member, I thought you might also be interested in helping to build the broader community’s knowledge about Wikidata, and why it matters.

If you’re interested, let’s schedule a time to talk over Zoom, or whichever platform you prefer. You could leave a direct message or fill in a questionnaire. The conversation should take about 30 min.

Hope you have a great day,

Chuankaz (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hallo Levana, ich glaube nicht, dass Objekte wie Q97103932, "conflation of Q337213 and Q96936785", VIAF oder Wikidata helfen. Da kein Abfragedatum eingetragen ist und die VIAF-Cluster sich regelmäßig ändern, ist es nur ein temporärer Eintrag, der in ein paar Wochen veraltet ist. Ich denke es ist besser, die VIAF-Kennung unter den bestehenden Objekten einzutragen und mit folgenden Angaben zu versehen: "Missbilliger Rang" + "Grund für die Zurückweisung: Vermischung" + Abrufdatum; vgl. Q3182328#P214. --Kolja21 (talk) 14:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Es ist leider zur Zeit nicht der Fall, daß die VIAF-Cluster sich regelmäßig ändern. Wikidata:VIAF/cluster/conflating entities besteht seit fast ein Jahr und es ist nichts korrigiert worden; schon früher habe ich versucht, VIAF per e-mail zu benachrichtigen, ohne Ergebnis. Wir sollten daher VIAF-Kennungen behandeln, als ob sie nie sich ändern werden. Statt die noch aktuelle Kennung beiden Objekten beizufügen, was missbilligen Rang benötigt, sorgt es m.E. für Klarheit, ein einziges Vermischung-Objekt zu schaffen, die mittels die "von"-Qualifikatoren weiterleitet. Du hast aber Recht, daß ein Abrufdatum nötig ist, was ich als Quelle zufügen werde. — Levana Taylor (talk) 16:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Verstehe ich das richtig, dass hier der LCCN-Eintrag das Problem ist? Inwiefern ist dann aber die VIAF-Vermischung prioritär? --Emu (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Der LCCN-Eintrag hat keine Probleme; VIAF hat einfach Kennungen zusammengestellt, die zwei verschiedene Personen betreffen. Es gibt zwar Fälle wie Q97118227, wo die Vermischung bei dem ISNI-Eintrag entsteht; aber da VIAF-Clusters aus anderen Einträgen bestehen, macht das den VIAF-Eintrag nicht selbst zur Vermischung? Obwohl ich ISNI benachrichtigt habe, sehe ich kein Grund zu erwarten, daß ISNI bald das Problem korrigieren wird. — Levana Taylor (talk) 16:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ich befürchte, da irrst du dich. Der LCCN n2019185912 gehört zum Psychiater. Die LoC behauptet aber, dass dieser auch das Werk Telescopes and accessories verfasst hat. Deshalb glaubt VIAF, dass es sich bei dem Psychiater und dem Astronomen um die gleiche Person handelt. Ein reines LCCN-Problem, das sich auf den VIAF-Eintrag auswirkt. Da kann VIAF auch mit manuellem Eingriff nichts machen. --Emu (talk) 21:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Also gut, wenn alle oder fast alle Irrtümer des VIAF anderen Quellen entstammen, was soll das für Wikidata bedeuten? Wir müssen auf alle Fälle so handeln, als ob beim VIAF und anderswo nie etwas korrigiert wird (SNAC handelt schnell, alle andere an denen ich geschrieben habe machen gar nichts). Demzufolge werden Vermischung-Objekten mehr, nicht weniger, nutzvoll; Dokumentation auch. [Es ist übrigens nicht wahr, daß VIAF nichts machen könnte, wenn es überhaupt etwas machen würde: es könnte LC aus dem Cluster ausscheiden.] — Levana Taylor (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Nachsatz: Es würde sich trotzdem nicht um eine Vermischung handeln, weil ja die Person eindeutig bezeichnet ist. Darf ich außerdem fragen, was bei James M. Baker (Q97119013) conflated ist? --Emu (talk) 22:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ich zitiere mich selbst über James M. Baker (Q97119013): "LC authority pertains to James M. Baker (Q1598583), ISNI to [that and James M. Baker (Q96843779)]; the PLWABN record has Q1598583's birthdate 1942 and Q96843779's work Music theory in concept and practice." ISNI ist wohl die Urquelle der Vermischung, aber wir müssen nicht wissen, wie das Problem entstanden ist, um es zu behandeln. Und wenn du sagen willst, daß LC n2019185912 nicht eine Vermischung ist, da stimme ich zu; der VIAF-Eintrag aber ist eine. — Levana Taylor (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Danke euch beiden für die Ausführungen. Was ich immer noch nicht verstanden habe: Wo liegt der Vorteil, wenn wir Objekte für vermischte VIAF-Cluster anlegen? Falls wir nicht parallel die VIAF-ID, wie oben beschrieben, mit der Angabe "Missbilliger Rang" bei den betreffenden Personen eintragen, werden die IDs per Bot hinzugefügt. --Kolja21 (talk) 01:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ich weiß nichts über Bots; ich hätte gedacht, daß wenn IDs schon einen Sitz haben, werden sie nicht noch wo hinzugefügt. Meine Meinung ist, daß Vermischung-Objekte besser der Ordnung der Konzepte entsprechen. Wer ist es, um den es sich bei VIAF 250349994 handelt? Weder Q96936785 noch Q337213, sondern ein Mischwesen. — Levana Taylor (talk) 02:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Die Bots arbeiten in beide Richtungen: Bei den Objekten, die jetzt keinen VIAF-Eintrag haben, wird VIAF 250349994 nachgetragen, und bei Q97103932, "conflation of Q337213 and Q96936785", werden die Normdaten aus dem VIAF-Cluster ausgelesen und dem Mischwesen zugeordnet. Der VIAF-Algorithmus seinerseits "weiß" jetzt, dass zu ID 250349994 ein Wikidata-Objekt vorliegt, das er dem Cluster zuordnen kann. --Kolja21 (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

OK, danke. Das größte Problem ist, daß Bots aufgrund einer Kennung sei sie falsch/vermischt oder nicht, noch weitere Kennungen hinzufügen. Hindert es das, wenn die Kennung mißbillegen Rang hat? — Levana Taylor (talk) 02:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Die Kennung "missbilligter Rang" hilft auf jeden Fall: Sowohl Bots wie bei der "intellektuellen" Bearbeitung. Anders gesagt: Falsch zugeordnete Kennungen sollte man nur löschen, falls sie nicht in VIAF oder anderen Quellen vorkommen, sonst besteht immer die Gefahr, dass sie ein paar Tage oder Monate später wieder eingefügt werden. BTW: Großartig, dass du so gut Deutsch sprichst! Mir fällt es schwer, so komplexe Themen auf Englisch zu diskutieren. --Kolja21 (talk) 15:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hilft es tatsächlich immer? Als ich mir das vor einem halben Jahr angeschaut habe, hat VIAF den deprecated-Hinweis ignoriert und einfach eine normale Verlinkung angenommen … --Emu (talk) 15:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Wenn die Kennungen mit mißbilligtem Rang existieren UND auch eine mit normalem Rang bei einem Vermischung-Objekt, dann wird VIAF das Vermischung-Objekt wählen, nicht wahr? — Levana Taylor (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

VIAF legt seine Karten leider nicht offen. Wir wissen nicht, ob der Algorithmus den Rang bereits ausliest. Wir haben die Verantwortlichen aber darauf hingewiesen und hoffen, falls es im Moment noch nicht klappt, dass der Algorithmus dahingehend verbessert wird. --Kolja21 (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ich habe jetzt angefangen, die Kennungen, die bereits bei Vermischung-Objekten stehen, mit mißbilligtem Rang allen betroffenen Objekten zuzustellen, und alles dreifach zu dokumentieren. Viel Arbeit, auch wenn es nur 16 James-Baker-Vermischungen gibt ... — Levana Taylor (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

See Mix'n'Match - some may be matched to existing items.--GZWDer (talk) 16:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the tip -- I've matched a couple and corrected a couple. Question, though: what do you do with an external identifier that's a library catalog name heading for a jumble of books by 25 different writers with the same name, as is the case for NLA 35742751/People Australia 1066903? It's clearly not supposed to refer to any one writer, just authors with that name in the NLA system that aren't otherwise identified. I suppose I should mark it N/A in mix-and-match? — Levana Taylor (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

FYI: here is a list of 345 articles with an author named James Baker. I am not sure we can resolve all of them (some are random students with little additional information). Author Disambiguator may help in some cases.--GZWDer (talk) 00:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yes, actually I looked at all those already :-) I will paste in the notes I took on their authorship in case you want to create items for the authors. Some are well-known, others are fleeting presences. — Levana Taylor (talk) 00:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

And here ya go -- I seem to have stopped taking notes at middle initial M, but that still covers the majority of it because most of the rest will be taken care of by Wikidata:Bot requests#Replace author name string. — Levana Taylor (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I found a person called James Robinson Baker.

• General register of the members of the Phi Kappa Sigma fraternity, 1850-1920 page 18: "James Robinson Baker, A.B., Newberry, Pa. Born in Washington County, Pa., October 30, 1861. Son of John and Pricilla (Bane) Baker. Presbyterian Clergyman. Married, 1891, Jennie O. Pry."
• FamilySearch 2X9K-K64 (born 1866)
• Find a Grave of father: 63464911 mother: 63466112 (does not have an entry for this son)
• Ancestry for mother (son born 1963)

Likely related (but I can not confirm they are the same person):

• James Robinson Baker, educated in Washington and Jefferson College, Washington Co. PA, 1886 [1]
• James Robinson Baker, educated in Pittsburgh, Western Theological Seminary, Allegheny Co. PA, 1891
• James Robinson Baker, minister, Brockway, Presbyterian Church, Jefferson Co, PA, 1891-1896 [2]
• James Robinson Baker, minister, Presbyterian Church, Lycoming Co, 1896

I don't know whether such information is enough to create an item.--GZWDer (talk) 11:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sure it's enough to create an item -- birth date and profession would be enough, let alone the other info. There's actually a ton of info about him in Familysearch, thanks to censuses, plus those helpful sources you found--they indeed are all him. Done.

There are lots and lots of others I haven't added (yet?) -- not just the ones from that list of authors of scientific papers, but ones from Alumni Oxonienses and Alumni Cantabrigienses, from the Clergy Database, from the Australian Roll of Honour site, etc. Take a look at Wikidata:Guide to James Bakers/WorldCat Identities. There are a bunch of works there by authors I found a little information about:

1. OCLC 1066759296, OCLC 26816558 J. David Baker, Canadian lawyer, see FindLaw listing
2. OCLC 232161884, OCLC 876803548 J. David Baker 1973-, see IMDb
3. OCLC 4929526 James Arthur (Jim) Baker, investment advisor, see LinkedIn
4. Col. James E. Baker of the Air Force Geophysics Laboratory, see Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, perhaps author of OCLC 1109663067
5. OCLC 855415503, OCLC 741339759 James H. Baker, M.D., an internal medicine doctor in Muskogee, Oklahoma, member of American Heart Association National Program Administration [as of 2010]
6. OCLC 640093389 Lt.-Col. James H. Baker, author bio: "Lieutenant Colonel James H Baker, USAF, recently [as of January 2007] graduated from the National War College and is currently serving on staff in the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics."
7. OCLC 8027903 James L. Baker of Goddard Space Flight Center, see profile
8. OCLC 665142664 James L. Baker, M.D., see personal site
9. OCLC 41976318, OCLC 1139509020 Baker, James Seldon 1906-; mining engineer; in old LC catalog
10. 16312125, OCLC 20255933, OCLC 20512227 James S. Baker of the Municipal Technical Advisory Service, University of Maryland
11. OCLC 12981027, OCLC 141200606 James S. Baker, mayor of Pomona, Calif., 1961 to 1963
12. OCLC 227841369, OCLC 227819854, OCLC 227819875 James S. Baker of Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University
13. OCLC 14269254, 31962118 Jim Baker, basketball coach, see personal website
14. OCLC 994000313 Jim Baker, CEO, see author bio
15. OCLC 586002659 Jim Baker, conservationist and Bibbulmun Track Foundation volunteer in Western Australia, whose biography in "Great Walks Annual Special 2016" reads, "Perth-based Jim is a recycled Pom who enjoys trekking in Australia, Europe and Asia." Born circa 1946 according to end-to-end report.
16. OCLC 953541624 Jim Baker of Navajo Ministries, see publisher's bio
17. OCLC 953200117 Jimmie L. Baker: born in Cadiz, Kentucky, in 1948; a Vietnam veteran and former courier driver; wrote a newspaper column for four years for a newspaper in the Hinesville, Georgia, area; and was living in Madison, Tennessee, as of 2016.
18. OCLC 122330943 Jimmy H. Baker, former State Finance Director of Alabama; see official bio

I am currently engaged in going through SNAC records and trying to figure out what James Baker all their archival resources belong to -- boy, that's a tangle and a half. I am definitely going to create items for as many of those people as I can. — Levana Taylor (talk) 14:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Note I have created a page for a list of people without Wikidata items yet. Some will never have an item, as information available is too scarce even to identify the subject.--GZWDer (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! I can already tell you that the clergyman from Alumni Oxonienses, of Nuneham Courtenay and Wheatfield, is Q96798633, so I removed him. I'll look into others as I have a chance (making good progress on SNAC now). — Levana Taylor (talk) 22:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

P.S. I haven't been around Wikidata very long and don't really understand the criteria for notability and what sources are good enough to provide it. Would all of those authors I listed above be notable on account of having published a book, even if other information is sketchy? If you would sort then into groups it would really help me understand your group system. — Levana Taylor (talk) 23:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Usually you should create an item if 1. you can find a valid identifier for it (but, user-registerable ones like FamilySearch, Geni, ORCID, Facebook, LinkedIn etc. does not count; and reviewed and formally published sources are preferred than those self-published like The Peerage); 2. There are reliable sources describing it; or 3. It is used by other item that is notable by either having a sitelink or meeting #1 or #2. YOu should discard Group 4, 5, 6 (which are likely not relevant to Wikidata unless you and only found other sources satisfying #1 or #2) and focus on Group 1, 2.

By the way here contain more than 15 million records (though unknown how many are notable).--GZWDer (talk) 02:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Do you have a MyHeritage premium subscription? The free version is considerably less use than FamilySearch. Ancestry.com would be very useful for research but it's insane how expensive that is. — Levana Taylor (talk) 02:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

So please follow phab:T252645. BTW I previously created items for all collections in FamilySearch; see Special:WhatLinksHere/Q94420095 --GZWDer (talk) 02:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

See [3].--GZWDer (talk) 20:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Claire Redfield (Q615565) was voiced by a James Baker in Revelations 2, but it is a pseudonym of a woman. Somebody suggested it is Ali Hillis, but it is not officially confirmed. Should we add this to the list?--GZWDer (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think that would fit in the "alternative names" list which is a miscellany anyhow. — Levana Taylor (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

BTW, there's someone in SNAC named "Mrs. James N. Baker;" I haven't created an item for her because essentially nothing is known about her (just that she's one of the people interviewed in an unpublished oral history project). If I did, where would she fit in the list? — Levana Taylor (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

I am not sure whether [4] and [5] refer to the same person.--GZWDer (talk) 02:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it is the same guy. He is mentioned in w:Stochastic universal sampling. Gotta figure out whether the PhD was '87 or '89, but it's the same PhD either way. — Levana Taylor (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

OK, so, Baker's own CV says he earned his PhD in 1987, and here is his doctoral advisor's list of advisees which agrees with that. But all citations of the thesis give its date as 1989. I suspect the thesis must've been revised and published after being accepted for the degree. — Levana Taylor (talk) 02:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

This profile contains a work "Report on technical and commercial education in East Prussia, Poland, Galicia, Silesia and Bohemia", which is published in 1900 (cited in 1911EB) and is not possible to be written by a person born 1930.--GZWDer (talk) 20:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Aha! you found another stray. That's by James Baker (Q88218745). The National Library of Poland authority record is clearly for James Baker (Q223151) though, they just think he wrote that book, along with another which he really did write. I'm sending them a note, but there's nothing wrong with the VIAF record. I have a list of wrongly attributed works on the VIAF errors page but I'm not sure VIAF can do anything about them, they probably can't manually remove works that are imported from the authority records in the cluster. — Levana Taylor (talk) 22:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

I did a search in English Wikipedia articles [6] and (currently I am only 1/3 complete) found 27 possible people named James Baker. I am not sure whether some of them will be duplicated with existing items.--GZWDer (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

What do you want to do about them? I suppose anyone mentioned in Wikipedia ought to have an item, even if they don't merit an article. I feel pretty sure I'll be able to identify them all and find some basic info. — Levana Taylor (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

BTW the survivor of the Cullin-la-ringo massacre (not really survivor, he just wasn't there at the time -- one guy was there and escaped) already had an item, James Baker (Q98960386). I've added significant event (P793) Cullin la Ringo massacre (Q5193032) subject has role (P2868) survivor (Q6136036) -- best I can think of to do. — Levana Taylor (talk) 22:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

James Jay Baker (Q97094282) is not in the main index page yet.--GZWDer (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

James L. Baker (Q97093703) - this person may be same as the author of Q64883270 and one of people mentioned in w:Joan Hodges Queneau Medal.--GZWDer (talk) 16:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yep, you're right. — Levana Taylor (talk) 17:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Besides English Wikipedia and English Wikisource, There are many things in Commons too, such as this one.--GZWDer (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Aargh, so there are. Add 'em to the list ... — Levana Taylor (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thank you for adding items for each volume of this work. However, I think there may be an error in your numbering. For instance, History of the Pacific States of North America, Volume 24 states that it is about the history of Oregon; but according to the title pages of the works, it's volumes 29 and 30 that concern Oregon. I've found this issue on several of the volumes. I wanted to check with you, where did you pull the numbers and subtitles from? I think there may have been inconsistent numbering for this series, so maybe this is an inconsistency in the original, rather than an error? Any clues welcome! I'm trying to link them up with Wikisource transcriptions. -Pete F (talk) 22:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

I suppose what I see most often is the volume number of the Works of HHB as opposed to volume number of the History of the Pacific States. Maybe that accounts for the confusion, but I'd love to know what's a good authority for the latter. -Pete F (talk) 23:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

What I used was this WorldCat record which I think is the first printing of the series, in San Francisco 1882-1890. — Levana Taylor (talk) 23:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Have you set up a page like we did for VIAF and LCCN errors for your contact at ISNI? --RAN (talk) 02:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi Levana Taylor,

On the item created by you came last night a question. Hope my answer and edits are correct :)

Greetings & salutations from Amsterdam, Klaas `Z4␟` V:  08:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! — Levana Taylor (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome :) Klaas `Z4␟` V:  20:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Dear Levana Taylor,

I hope you are doing good,

I am Kholoud, a researcher at 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 at kholoudsaa@gmail.com or kholoud.alghamdi@kcl.ac.uk or use this form https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdmmFHaiB20nK14wrQJgfrA18PtmdagyeRib3xGtvzkdn3Lgw/viewform?usp=sf_link 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 if you have any questions or require more information about this project.

Thank you for considering taking part in this research.

Regards

Kholoudsaa (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)Reply