User talk:Elyaqim

Logo of Wikidata Welcome to Wikidata, Elyaqim!

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!

Redactyll (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Damaged scan copy

In this edit you have linked to a scan at Hathi Trust, but the copy you linked is a low-quality Google scan that is missing the title page and other content. Is there not a better scan of this edition at Hathi Trust? --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of that specific edition, no, I do not believe so. And if HathiTrust later acquired one, it should get the same identification number. —Elyaqim (talk) 05:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Q184742

Individual editions of this work may be in public domain or under copyright. It depends on the edition. Many editions of this work are still copyrighted around the world. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indicating that the work is in the public domain does not mean that every edition thereof is in the public domain. There are a tremendous number of Wikidata records that state that a particular poem or novel or song is in the public domain, and it under no circumstances means that, say, later editions with new illustrations, or re‐recordings with new vocals, are also in the public domain. You also wrote that “only publications can be in public domain,” which is untrue; unpublished works are absolutely covered by copyright, and in the United States, there are different rules for when the copyrights for published and unpublished works expire. Even so, Metamorphoses is not unpublished; the original Latin text has been published numerous times, not to mention the fact that the original work long predates the concept of copyright and so has always been in the public domain. —Elyaqim (talk) 01:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Q54859910 and Q783947

Whilst I can understand your trying to differentiate the two items here, I don't think that it relates well to how at least some of the Wikipedia articles have been done, they don't seem to reflect the differentiation that you have set up, especially at enWP and Commons which reflect the works.

Also, please don't put wikisource editions against the work item, for further information see Wikidata:Books. If you put an edition against a item it will most likely get converted into an edition item, or moved away to its own item. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Q783947 (referring to the character) was created in 2012, while Q54859910 (referring to the poem) was created substantially later, in 2018, because it had gone so long without any Q item. It is true that many of the Wikipedia articles discuss both the rhyme and the character as if they constitute one topic, which they largely do, but I believe that is the case with other pairs of Wikidata items. Perhaps some of the Wikipedia articles should be linked to the other item, but ultimately, Humpty Dumpty is a character that appears in multiple literary and theatrical works other than the nursery rhyme (although admittedly most don’t yet have Wikidata items). 🙂 —Elyaqim (talk) 03:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Q1210336

Please put information about the first edition on the data item for the first edition of this work, not on the general item for the work. Information specific to a particular edition applies only to that editioin. The work data item is for information that applies to the work generally, regardless of edition. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:40, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please direct me to the data item for the first edition? Elyaqim (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you located it yet? I’m sure it must be there somewhere, because otherwise it would suggest that you are effectively deleting relevant and accurate data added by another editor rather than putting it where you feel it belongs.

Also, by reverting all my edits at once, you show a preference for the existing data even though it includes properties that are equally specific to an edition or set thereof, such as the publication date (which is now erroneous, if taken to refer to the earliest publication date), language, number of pages, and in this case, the u.r.l. where it is described. Why are those properties acceptable to you when you removed my addition of the work’s inception, something that is not edition‐specific? — Elyaqim (talk) 11:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still no response? Perhaps you’re away on holiday. I see you have a tradition of reverting users’ edits rather than moving accurate data to the correct locations, and so you certainly give the impression of acting more like a gatekeeper than a proper Wikidata contributor. — Elyaqim (talk) 00:38, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Call for participation in a task-based online experiment

Dear Elyaqim,

I hope you are doing well,

I am Kholoud, a researcher at King's College London, and I am working on a project as part of my PhD research, in which I have developed a personalised recommender model that suggests Wikidata items for the editors based on their past edits. I am collaborating on this project with Elena Simperl and Miaojing Shi.

I am inviting you to a task-based study that will ask you to provide your judgments about the relevance of the items suggested by our model based on your previous edits.

Participation is completely voluntary, and your cooperation will enable us to evaluate the accuracy of the recommender system in suggesting relevant items to you. We will analyse the results anonymised, and they will be published in a research venue.

The experiment should take no more than 15 minutes, and it will be held next week.

If you agree to participate in this study, please either contact me at kholoud.alghamdi@kcl.ac.uk or use this form https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfA1wfdBfCRlcG3WhDyc-V8lzgPNx3fDFCNXkyn4CSwahXZ_A/viewform?usp=sf_link

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

For more information about my project, please read this post: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Kholoudsaa

In case you have further questions or require more information, don't hesitate to contact me through my mentioned email.

Thank you for considering taking part in this research.

Regards Kholoudsaa (talk) 16:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]