User talk:Alexmar983/archive/2017

EFN

Ciao Alex, ti scrivo qui perché vedo non riesco a spiegarmi. Qua non è un discorso di errori su it.wiki, non c'è nulla che non vada bene su it.wiki (anche il fatto che il template traduca quella proprietà come "iscritti" è perfetto). I problemi sorgono dove la proprietà viene usata per indicare non gli iscritti ma i parlamentari. Tu stesso hai sottolineato che per i gruppi parlamentari al PE non ha senso metterci gli iscritti, ma allora perché teniamo quella proprietà?--Caarl 95 (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Vado di fretta, dopo leggo a modo e vedo cosa fare, scrivo solo per segnalarti che in realtà un progetto politica (o qualcosa che gli assomigli), esiste già... Comunque ti ringrazio, mi hai fatto navigare un po' su 'data ed era un bel po' che non lo facevo (e con i vari aggiornamenti ce n'era bisogno ;) )--Caarl 95 (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

L'avevo cercato Caarl 95 probabilmente ho sbagliato a digitare nella fretta. Puoi lasciare un messaggio in quella talk, ma non aspettarti miracoli di partecipazione. Mi sa che un link al bar generale sarà auspicabile comunque, se non intervenisse nessun altro.--Alexmar983 (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

io credo che la barra di data abbia dei problemi con i completamenti automatici. Se cerchi "Wikidata:WikiProject Politics" come feci io, non ti dice che c'è qualcosa di simile ma che non c'è nulla. Eh si a averci tempo uno dovrebbe rinominarlo. parlare con chi l'ha impostato e suggerire di fare un rebrand. Se mai volessi rilanciarlo, dimmelo che ti aiuto a cercare volontari. --Alexmar983 (talk) 01:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Re:Wikidata:WikiProject_Aviation

Grazie Alex per tutto l'aiuto. Ho letto dei tuoi consigli sui i tool per wikidata...Avrò bisogno magari più avanti di comprendere meglio il loro uso, se potrò essere d'aiuto al progetto.--Fernando.tassone (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

RE:Battuto sul tempo

Ciao, va bene! Si, ultimamente sto lavorando su personaggi del Trentino. :) --Afnecors (talk) 13:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, lascia pure. --Afnecors (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Grazie, li proverò di certo i tool che mi hai segnalato! --Afnecors (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Grazie mille

Grazie mille dell'aiuto. Ah, una domanda... sei per caso Abruzzese? --Distico (talk) 10:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

No, non ti preoccuppare. Ancora grazie mille. --Distico (talk) 10:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Re: Tool per le immagini Wikidata

Certo! Mi piace molto l'idea. Quando lo possiamo fare?--Ferdi2005 (talk) 14:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Puoi scrivere ora ma ti leggo dopo--Ferdi2005 (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Benissimo. Ci do un occhiata.--Ferdi2005 (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Re: Tool per le immagini su wikidata

Ciao! Di quali tool si parla? Quelli indicati nella descrizione della mappa effettivamente non li conosco (Wikishootme, WDFIST, Wiki needs pictures), a cosa servono? --Una giornata uggiosa '94 (talk) 11:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC) PS grazie!

Se hai informazioni da scrivermi vai pure, quando ho tempo me le guardo e proverò a sperimentare. Grazie! --Una giornata uggiosa '94 (talk) 11:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Re: Qualità di P18

Ciao Alex grazie della segnalazione ho visto la mappa. Avezzano ha l'elemento P18 ma nella mappa non appare, stesso discorso per le voci ancillari (castello, chiese ecc.) uff... ;)--Marica Massaro (talk) 20:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

eh infatti, mi pare che la Marsica sia in ordine. Non ci sono problemi neanche con P373, le categorie in Commons sono tutte in ordine sia su data che in it.wiki. Mi sembra di averci lavorato molto. Grazie comunque Alex, a presto.--Marica Massaro (talk) 08:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Una cortesia.

Ciao Alex. Sto cercando di capire se e come in una casella di input è possibile impostare un valore di default. Mi spiego con un paio di esempi. Quando nelle dichiarazioni voglio aggiungere la proprietà "paese" vorrei che la casella di input contenesse già il valore Italia semplicemente da confermare invece che da riscrivere tutte le volte; così come nell'elenco dei link alle wikipedie vorrei che mi preimpostasse già il valore "it". Tempo addietro provai senza riuscirci (ma senza neppure sapere se fosse quello adatto) con l'accessorio autoEdit; inoltre contattai un paio di amministratori ma purtroppo non arrivai ad alcuna soluzione. Chiedo a te visto che sei sempre disponibile e aggiornato. Grazie in anticipo. Saluti. --Discanto (talk) 09:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Discanto sono disponibile ma non sempre aggiornato. Anzi, al momento mi sto aggiornando su altre cose che ti devo segnalare. In genere ci sono due soluzioni: si chiede al bar generalista in inglese o si chiede a chi le se quasi tutte. Nella mia esperienza ho dei nomi che risolvono ogni problema ma prima di girar loro ogni domanda, proverei al bar generalista (ci passano uguale). Ti consiglio di fare una sola domanda (cioè con un solo esempio, e poi introdurre l'altro). Sospetto che chi è abile risolve il problema abbia esperienza a girare bot e quindi non si preoccupi molto di valori preimpostati. Vuoi che faccia io la domanda al posto tuo? Se non risponde nessuno pingo sotto qualche nome.--Alexmar983 (talk) 09:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Beh, visto il tuo en-4 non posso che chiederti se ci pensi tu... --Discanto (talk) 09:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

ok Discanto ora ho una deadline col capo che mi terrà impegnato per qualche ora. Ma provvedo al ritorno. Potrebbe essere domani (per me, notte fonda per te)--Alexmar983 (talk) 10:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Quando puoi/vuoi. Ty. --Discanto (talk) 10:16, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Re: Tool per le immagini su wikidata

Ciao, per Legnano direi che la foto della basilica già presente va benissimo, direi che è la migliore, si vede sia la chiesa che la piazza. Ciao, --LukeWiller (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC).

Ciao Alexmar983! Certo, dimmi pure. Onestamente non credo che mi rimanga molto tempo per occuparmi di questi aspetti, ma farò il possibile. Grazie. Etienne (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Perfetto, grazie mille! Etienne (talk) 07:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Grazie! Proverò a dare un'occhiata! :) Etienne (talk) 10:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, ma non ora!

Si lo conosco, fa di tutto, anche fotografia stenopeica, bravo e anche conosciuto nel mondo della fotografia! In questo periodo però sono incasinatissimo con la voce di Uliano Lucas e una nuova voce che devo iniziare su Claudio Vercelli storico della Shoah, oltre che su una bravissima coreografa di danza. Se non ti occupi tu e devo farlo io (o ti occupi tu e ti dò una mano io) posso farlo fra qualche settimana. Un caro saluto Alex sei un esempio di perseveranza, un vero "tosto" con le palle, hai tutta la mia stima!--Fcarbonara (talk) 08:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Alex fagli fare pure lo stub (non come curriculum, mi raccomando) poi ci penso io ad ampliare la voce (significa che farò tre cose insieme). Fatti mandare una sua foto e caricala tu su Commons. Se vuole fare lo stub in una sandbox e gli dai tu un'occhiata prima di pubblicarlo sarebbe meglio. Ad Alberto Magliozzi (un fotografo bravissimo e meritevole di una voce su Wp, ma pasticcione a non finire, gli hanno giustamente cancellato la voce tre volte, i nostri colleghi come sai valutano anche la forma e non sbagliano. Avvisami quando sarà pronto, io ho del materiale su di lui, ma avevo letto qualcosa anche tempo fa.--Fcarbonara (talk) 11:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Alex avvisa che io su scultura e relative installazioni e pittura, ho una conoscenza che tende a zero, quindi la parte che posso sviluppare con dovizia è solo quella sulla fotografia stenopeica.--Fcarbonara (talk) 12:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Re: Benvenuto

Ti ringrazio e mi piacerebbe contribuire anche su wikidata, ma tranne qualche intervento qua e là collegato più o meno direttamente alle attività su wikipedia non credo riuscirò a fare nel breve termine... Mi ricorderò di romperti le scatole quando inizierò a smanettare anche su wikidata! ;) Grazie ancora --Life'n'death (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Claudio Vercelli (e Stroobant)

Ciao Alex, sto terminando la voce Claudio Vercelli, il cui "Q" di wikidata non è stato ancora creato. Ti puoi interessare tu? Un caro saluto--Fcarbonara (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

ok, Fcarbonara . in User talk:Carlomartini86 ho chiesto per Stroobant ma mi si ignora... sulla mia sandbox in wikipedia poi quando hai tempo dai un'occhiata. Please... Ho trovato un'intervista su una buona rivista straniera ma poco altro e senza google difficile cercare cosa è uscito negli ultimi due anni.--Alexmar983 (talk) 07:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

c'ha pensato il bot. La miglioro.--Alexmar983 (talk) 07:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Ho una rete così lenta oggi che non riesco a fare bene le ricerche, non ho ancora trovato un ID decente. Ci penseremo dopo...--Alexmar983 (talk) 08:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Grazie Alex! :)--Fcarbonara (talk) 08:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Ciao, come va? Hmmm, purtroppo temo che dovrai rinfrescarmi la memoria: di cosa si stava parlando esattamente? --Carlomartini86 (talk) 12:41, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Ciao carissimo... problemi con ping e notifiche? In sandbox c'è una biografia abbozzata di Dominique Stroobant, artista-scultore-fotografo belga residente a Carrara. Già anni fa ti chiesi quando incontrai la prima volta la figlia se avevi fonti, se si poteva fare qualcosa. Ti ricordi? Son passati tipo due anni e penso che qualche fonte in più ci sia. Oltre a esserci già l'item su wikidata preso da archivi terzi. Carbonara ha garantito che dal lato fotografico la rilevanza ci sarebbe, ma lui è "buono" e lo sai come è itwikipedia. Per cui ti chiedo, cosa ne pensi tu? Se non sei ancora convinto, punto su altre wikipedia che hanno criteri più laschi per fare la voce. Così è meno stress. Posso anche intervistarlo e cose così, ma la voce è un prerequisito. Ovviamente non è lontanamente un tipo alla ricerca di pubblicità.--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah ecco sì, adesso ci sono. Mah, non saprei cos'altro aggiungere a quel che scrissi all'epoca: sicuramente abbiamo link rossi più urgenti ma non la vedo come una voce a rischio di enciclopedicità, anche se con i nuovi criteri la sola Biennale del '76 non è più in grado di blindarlo. Se poi su carta spunta dell'altro sarebbe meglio ancora. Online mi sembra di capire che un utente con buona padronanza delle lingue possa far bene... Fcarbonara sarà buono, ma anche io sto un po' invecchiando!--Carlomartini86 (talk) 13:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Ciao

Ciao, si certo, avevo ben capito lo spirito del tuo messaggio e lo condivido, diciamo che la nota velatamente polemica era più su ciò che aveva scritto Asia. Certo, come potrò studierò al meglio le possibilità di Wikidata. Grazie ancora e buon proseguimento --Joetaras (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Lavoro su Wikidata

Ho tanto lavoro già avviato, una scaletta ricchissima. Un paio di voci da mettere in rete entro domenica. Controllo sempre la corrspondente voce su Wikidata, se posso aggiungo elementi, e se la voce non esiste ancora la faccio. Buona giornata.--FloraFlavia (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Re:wikidata

Ciao Alex, ho appena letto:) Bene o male, mi sono occupata di connettività anche con le pagine orfane... Diciamo che non sono così pratica, ma mi divertono le sfide. Ho imparato qualcosa in più. A presto:) --Geoide (talk) 13:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Ahahahah, of course!--Geoide (talk) 05:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Pendragon

Ciao, non ho capito se il commento che hai lasciato sulla mia pagina era un complimento per questa bozza o era sarcasmo per tutto lo sconquasso che ho fatto quando mi sono raccorto che è stata cancellata. A mio avviso tale casa editrice è da considerarsi enciclopedica da diversi punti di vista: per la quantità delle pubblicazioni che edita (più di 1200 in 24 anni di attività), per il suo lavoro con Il Maggio Musicale Fiorentino (una delle più importanti istituzioni musicali italiane), o anche solo per il Dizionario italiano-bolognese/bolognese-italiano (un assoluto unicum, la prima ad usare la notazione fonetica di Luciano Canepari). Per non parlare del lavoro di raccolta e selezione in campo teatrale. E poi ci sono le monografie in Psicologia. E poi quelle in Filosofia, e poi quelle in Diritto, e poi quelle in Medicina..... --Skyfall (talk) 10:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikicentric and universal properties

Ciao Alex, I noticed the first line of your comment at c:Commons talk:Structured data#Wikicentric and universal properties (whilst looking for something else), and I was wondering if you could link me to the suggestion to separate wiki-centric properties? I have been thinking the same thing for a long time, and I meant to suggest it myself, so I'd like to +1 your suggestion and read any followup discussion. I tried skimming through your non-mainspace contributions to find the link, but I couldn't easily find it. Much thanks! --Quiddity (talk) 17:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

i try to find it Quiddity.--Alexmar983 (talk) 02:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Firma

Ecco fatto, grazie, ovviamente non ne ero a conoscenza:).--Geoide (talk) 07:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Grazie

Grazie del benvenuto su Wikidata! Ogni tanto aggiungo qualcosa e spero che il tuo benvenuto sia anche una disponbilità in caso di richieste di aiuto ;) grazie ancora --Frullatore Tostapane (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

incartarsi su wikidata

Ciao! sono capitato sulla pagina di Commissariato del popolo per gli affari interni e ho fatto alcune modifiche in wikidata: nome in italiano e così via perché avevo rilevato alcune inesattezze. Alla fine, però, mi sono accorto che c'erano due pagine con il nome uguale... non so cosa devo fare, cioè potrei seguire le istruzioni per fonderle ma non vorrei fare casini ti spiace dare un'occhiata? Vorrei il parere di una persona più esperta di me... [[1]] grazie mille in anticipo --Frullatore Tostapane (talk) 19:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Frullatore Tostapane nel link che mi mandi i due item sono diversi, uno è un commissariato agli armamenti, l'altro quello degli affari interni. Perché andrebbero fuse? Capita di fondere elementi (lo sviluppo delle varie wiki è irregolare e imprevedibile) ma questi mi sembrano diversi. Al massimo puoi creare la voce che manca in italiano così si vede ancora meglio che non sono lo stesso concetto. Sono poco online, scusa se sono di fretta.--Alexmar983 (talk) 02:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Frullatore Tostapane problemi e dubbi risolti?--Alexmar983 (talk) 06:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Ciao, in realtà devo ancora prendere confidenza con Wikidata, alla luce di quanto mi hai detto devo rivedere le correzioni che ho fatto, c'erano delle descrizioni che non corrispondevano, secondo me. Ci tornerò, magari in una domenica di pioggia ;) grazie mille --Frullatore Tostapane (talk) 22:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Fra qualche tempo ho più possibilità di farti didattica Frullatore Tostapane. In genere consiglio sempre di iniziare da gestire i label descrittivi e le immagini prima delle proprietà. Non so bene cosa fai, devo studiarlo meglio per proporti un piano didattico "personalizzato".--Alexmar983 (talk) 02:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

My talk page

Never edit my talk page again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Andy Mabbett I am not displeased in the end that we have some communication in the other direction. I say only two things. First of all, If I need to edit your talk page for any other reason related to any content here, I'll do it again, as it usual on these platforms. Secondly, your tone is not appropriate. In any case as a sign of goodwill as you can see I will edit my talk page now.

For any reader, this is what Mr Mabbet deleted many times, the first times without using the revert option, so I couldn't be informed, but maybe he was trying to be polite.

Title of the discussion: less patrolling, more talking

because of this, i repeat the same concept. --Alexmar983 (talk) 11:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

and we can also include this one.Change the attitude and speak more with people, otherwise you miss one key aspect of being a wikimedian.--Alexmar983 (talk) 12:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

--Alexmar983 (talk) 12:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

And now he is laso removing comment about content. Andy Mabbett I've asked around, apparently you are known or such personality.

Please use this as an example in your talks and let me know about the slides or the recorded video, I am really interested to see what you make out of it. I still don't see how this is an example of a wikimedian platfoprm workflow but suprise me.

I advice you in any case to to put back my comment, or I will ask the help of sysop. have a nice day.--Alexmar983 (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Notability of Wikimedians?

Just wondered when Wikimedians started to meet our Wikidata:Notability inclusion criteria? I do not see how Paulina Sanchez (Q42236109) meets dot points 1, 2, or 3. If there is a new inclusion criteria determined elsewhere then maybe it should be added to that page. If it is not an inclusion criteria, what criteria are we using?  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

billinghurst actually I wanted to talk about that at the village pump, if I had time (which thanks to the delay of the juries in many countries I don't have). I asked about a limit of publication, but noone replied to me if I remember. So, at the moment we are selecting the last jurors. She wanted to take part in the jury, and she is also looking for better profiles. We discussed about it and we created a profile in her case because she is actually publishing, the record will be updated in few months (she is waiting for the replies). At that point there will be no difference between her and anyone else whose ID is mainly bibliometric. If you want a complete bibliometric database, as suppose we want here, people with 2 or 3 publication are part of the database. She will be soon. You want to delete it? go on, i remove her from the jury. The entire page is in fact a presentation to people in the academia to the use of wikidata, which based on my experience is very useful to promote the importance of a "open acess" bibliometric repository. Than of course I have less time now to improve such profile and more later once the jury is fixed. We have a plan B to link other profiles. The same story is Q42290793.

funny thing is, I could have better candidates, but I don't want to have a too much eurocentric jury, and I can find only young PhD students from certain areas. this is not about "wikimedians" per se, it is simply that due to more than 30000 files I prefer jurors to know something about how to manage them, so the impact of such a huge amount of data is less intense on the platforms. And if I ask wikimedians they understand better what I am talking about, originally I asked people outside wiki but it takes more time.--Alexmar983 (talk) 06:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I think that it is better to go to a community discussion first. Notability is our inclusion criteria, and it isn't our place to quietly expand the criteria through convenience to ourselves. I look forward to seeing it at Wikidata:Project chat soon.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:08, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

convenience to ourself? billinghurst I am working for free and I have no convenience to myself. If you want to teach something about attitude, here is my opinion (with other facts)

As I said, discussions about notability already happened here and there and they were not really conclusive. For example in the ML of WMF too. Notability in an archive of structured data means also to have an ID, or some IDs, being limited only to specific local notability guide is not possible (and it is not in that link). I have asked already in the VP few weeks ago about notability in bibliometry, that is the issue here (besides her case). I asked if we had a limit of publication for example, because bots are creating article of researchers that ARE NOT NOTABLE IN LOCAL WIKIS. If a bot do it 10000 times is fine and if I do 10-15 times a sign of "convenience", this is strange. Let's not loose the big framework. We all like to go the single person and point out some principle, but if they don't match with the general situation, what is the point? Did you contact the guy who made the bot of all these researchers' items too? Can you show me the link for the talk or public discussion?

If you want a bibliometric catalog, as someone is doing, that has to be like other catalogs, and include people with at least one occurrence. In addition to that, western people are in MORE catalogs by default, it get worse when you go outside certain countries.

Before I open another discussion, please notice that I gave you the link. Scroll the names and tell me which one you don't agree. Just give your advice here. I was prepared if necessary to erase some of them, but not because I have an attitude, but because wikidata notability for researchers is not clear, it is under definition. I don't support in general to go to a single person that did what he could to get some clarity, and act in superficial way.

Because you can make it sound like if I am doing on my own, but this drops when you tell me what do you think. I am taking responsibility of what I do, the second step is that you tell me yours. Your structured opinion is your responsibility when you open a discussion and linking a guideline without any specific reference and say "go to VP" is rellay not enough. You have a list and tell me how do you see it. I know myself I want to go to the village pump again in any case, even before you told me. So give something new. What do you think?

We discuss now with specific links and contents (not generic link) than we go AGAIN to the village pump. And it is not that you wait for me, we go together, it is wiki. So we finally arrange some more precise rule, or not...

99% the discussion will be kinda inconclusive. This is not my "convenience" here, just my experience. Different things will be said, no agreement will be found beside some cut the corner here on there on minor details, some names will be deleted and than later recreated. but at least no matter who will be stuck in a limbo, I have done enough work to make the volunteers work without as huge workload and qualified cowolorkes, and I showed wikidata around.

Please, before we go again to the VP, link me the previous discussions that you are referring to. Not just a page link. The sentence in the page link, the previous applications, a similar deletions and so on. You look very assertive, that means you have something. Please, show it to me. I suppose, you could have told me, you refer to the sentence described using serious and publicly available references. If you think they are not serious, delete them. But you have to tell me which is serious and which is not. Again, Sanchez is going to have one very soon, and Vivek has gifhub, they both have ORCID, I warned them it case not enough, it is fine either way. At least you have one clear answer, because you don't get a lot usually. It is no big deal.

But it becomes a big deal if it goes beyond that, so please scroll the list and give me your advice. Thank you.--Alexmar983 (talk) 07:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, I was forgetting Vivke did have a SCOPUS, it is just wrong. this article, his first publication, which I remembered and made reference too, went indexed on Scopus but they made a wrong institution see. I have discovered and i still have to write him to fix it. So the first bottom line is Sanchez because she has publications that will be published soon. In the other cases, it is a probably endless discussion about how many IDs makes "notability" in an archive... and actually, you can set it up more productively if you present a list of cases IMHO, because this force people billinghurst to see a global picture and draw a line. Otherwise, they usually go on with generic comments, leave the responsibility to you and everything you do is potentially wrong. Been there... it's too easy this way.--Alexmar983 (talk) 08:13, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Another point on the list that has emerged billinghurst (that's why I wanted to go to Vp myself) is that we have items with just one ID sometimes. Now ORCID and wikimedia users are considered IDs, not like for example the Linkedin account. So again I have a subject with two IDs. Which I am happy to consider it is not enough, and I was tolerant only because a third one was soon on the way. Also for example Q26773031 this guy third IDs is.... twitter! This is one of the example in mind created by a sysop. So if a sysop wikimedians can create an item with just ORCID as a serious ID, I just tried.

This is a little bit different than describing someone that is looking for his convenience, I hope we agree. These are struggles of finding a balance in an area that clearly has not discussed a general picture of many problems. I can stay away from it, but I might have circumstances when I have to face it NOT in my interest but in the global interest, which in this case is the integration of the Southern empishpere in the wikilife. So I go on, step by step, doing the steps someone could have done before me and actually didn't. However, while I am dealing with the update of dozens of items I can't go to the VP for one case. I mean, I did that weeks ago when I had more time. Now, I simply postponed it because it might simply solved by itself. And because I wanted to show the final list to the VP. And If I have to go to the VP right now, at least I hope to get something productive out of it. So if you can scroll the list of names in the Competition page and give me your opinion, that would be useful. The only thing I see for my convenience is that I will now contact much better candidates that are all in Western countries. Sorry for the others. BTW Paulina seems very motivated I so much hope she will find some colleagues with stronger bibliometric record.--Alexmar983 (talk) 08:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

As I said previously, I don't see that the person created currently met the WD notability criteria as specified at the link. The debate on the expansion of that criteria is not one in which I will participate here, and one that I will watch elsewhere and if I have something of value to contribute, then I will there.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

ok billinghurst are saying therefore implicitely that she is the only names of all the list when you have a doubt. Becasue in this case that is not an "expansion of a criteria" it is simply a single case, therefore there is no urgence, do you agree on that? I am think on going on with my work and go to the VP at the edn as it was my plan since the beginning. Which will be in one week, is it an order of time that you agree with? Also, there are 35 millions of items, I suggest you start a discussion (because we should discuss here) mainly on where you have something of value to contribute. It's really in the interest of the balanced growth of the platform, here. Thirdly, it would be useful to me if can give your advice on Q26773031. This is someone with ORCID profile and other "social media" IDs (that is also a wikimedia account, it is reliable as a twitter one in the end). Can you tell if you see a clear difference here or not? Thank you. (I drop the "convenience to ourselves" part but I might give you some points to prove you that is actually the opposite, if you are interested)--Alexmar983 (talk) 05:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Before considering my item a point in any case you're trying to make: I made my own item to fulfil a structural need, i.e. my thesis was uploaded on Italian Wikisource, an item was created for it, therefore an item for its author should have been created. If this is the case you're trying to make, then please go ahead. Otherwise, please refrain from it, unless you want to create a WD:RFC for that. Thanks. Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 22:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

It is nice to see Sannita you are more cooperative here than somewhere else. I still don't understand why you all push me to ask for a comment I want to ask in any case. This always sounds a little bit like when you are in a public office and the guy behind the desk play it safe repeating some selected sentences.

I found your item looking for items of wikimedians with few IDs. I still see that there is a lot of ambiguity about what is considered a good quality ID and what is a "structural need". It is too easy to say that if I upload a Thesis on Wikisource is ok (put there is no link to sister project), but If I have a category on commons is not (especially if we get in the future structured data on commons). They are both content. It could look like some partially mismanaged framework.

Also, I don't understand why the single item are so important in some comments. I mean, if it is so important to pinpoint me as someone who is trying to enlarge a definition (?), than if I open a discussion is not about a single item, that's why I am preparing in my relatively limited free time a dossier. And it is strange to see how the interest is sometimes more about creating the box than preparing its quality content.

I want to remind how this started: I contacted someone that was available for the jury but for a simple matter of bad timing she couldn't have an SCOPUS yet, despite the fact she was making research. I checked all similar items, I found similar ones, we tried. I cited yours as a made by sysop but it could have been Q22582937 (which might actually get more IDs, it is just noone cared for more than one years), or Q18091124 (no items and a category on wikinews, again it is strange how we discriminate between commons category and very weak category of other projects because they "fullfill a need", or Q24761580, that put the commons category on the other sites... now that is what I saw. So coming to my talk and saying that I was trying to "quietly expand the criteria through convenience to ourselves" is actually not appropriate. Personally I would ave never done items like any of those by default (and there are probably more) but I found a situation where I had a similar one who would have get a better ID in few months in any case. Just that.

I could live with a deletion in any case, but I was willing myself to create a new discussion, like the ones I already started can prove (and also the fact I made Q41546637 too), in the general interest (and not mine) which takes simply more time than deleting. It just takes me time to prepare it.--Alexmar983 (talk) 02:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

If an item falls in WD:N, it can stay. If not, it cannot stay. That's it. If you want to change the rules, please do so opening a WD:RFC and building a consensus for it. Regarding your message, as always, TL;DR. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Again, you are both saying the same things again, you don't have to tell me that, as I said I was going to do in any case and never cared about changing anything at all. Plus I prefer Sannita a long explanation always to something short than it might be not true, like when you say to me "you are lier" in the mailing list of WMI. What was my lie anyway? You can express it in a long paragraph, for example, and I'd have no problem with that.--Alexmar983 (talk) 02:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, if someone want to erase that item I do not care, I repeat that. Which would be quite strange for someone who want to "change the rules" (?). I have no big problem to start an organic discussion in any case, but someone should have done it before me. Happy at least that none talks anymore about "convenience".--Alexmar983 (talk) 02:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Please also notice that I did not put occupation wikimedian, so this has never been my target here, the main discussion I wanted to do originally about the role of the IDs. I made her item as a scientist, waiting to have another ID for the publications. I will be one of the few people to actively want to discuss about that in any case and that's what you get in exchange. I am not surprise if few people want to do it in general. --Alexmar983 (talk) 03:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Here is another example Q15735643 or Q15735712. These items might have IDs but they were related to the core content, abandoned for years. Having a category on wikinews or an article on some very limited platform (besides commons?) might save the items in some case but this is a mentality issue that emerges in these items where noone made a strong effort to improve the ID part. And there is no way to check if the ID were actually available when they were created years ago.--Alexmar983 (talk) 03:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

billinghurst I have almost fixed the information campaign in Europe, but I have to go further in Latin America. As a result, I still have very very limited time (considering I have a real job), I appear here only to improve the content related to the competition. I remind you that if you want to start the discussion yourself, since you care about the topic, you can do it, just ping me. Please use the examples I have provided. Also, there is some preliminary discussion partially related to that at the village pump too. If you have no hurry, than I suppose you can just wait untilI am free, which I have no idea when it will be, probably when all the new campaign have started on the 15th and going smoothly. As I said to you, you can always suggest the deletion of the item directly, which is no problem to me. Although, this would hardly change anything in the general perception, some of the older items are much more interesting to fix a threshold, if that what you hope to achieve. Bye.--Alexmar983 (talk) 05:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Istanze e sottoclassi

Ciao Alexmar, come promisi (molto) tempo fa sto facendo un tentativo di approccio a Wikidata, spinto anche dall'intervento di kaspo80 al LinuxDay 2017 di Livorno. Per cercare di capire sto analizzando i dati relativi a Linux e ho trovato Debian (Q7593). Fra le dichiarazioni ho trovato sia "istanza di" che "sottoclasse di" e questo non mi sembra corretto: un elemento può essere solo una delle due. Ho capito bene ? Grazie --FabC (talk) 22:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

FabC premetto che io sto organizzando WSC e non ho tanto tempo wiki residuale, posso dirti che a quanto leggo hanno senso entrambe instance of (P31) e subclass of (P279), rispondono a esigenze diverse di catalogazione. In ogni caso ti segnalo Wikidata:Bar se vuoi fare domande ulteriori. Fino a dicembre-gennaio io mi sa che tanto tempo non ce l'ho. Mi spiace, eh--Alexmar983 (talk) 02:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Grazie per la risposta e la segnalazione a presto --FabC (talk) 12:10, 24 November 2017 (UTC)