You suggested I was incompetent because I did not understand your statement 5 is 1 not N (here). Before making sweeping statements and demanding deference, could you explain your statement, please? You seem to agree that it might be important that Wikidata be able to identify where and when items like "Slavery" or "Benfluorex" were banned. Let's try to stick to the task and avoid sniping with unjustified statements. (Yes, I'm rusty on db design. It is not my day job. Please try to be pedagogical and pleasant if you have something you want to explain.) 5 is 1 not N? SashiRolls (talk) 10:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
About this board
Welcome to Wikidata, ChristianKl!
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.
- Contents – The main help page for editing and using the site.
- Project chat – Discussions about the project.
If you have any questions, please ask me on my talk page. 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.
Previous discussion was archived aton 2016-08-31.
(I would like to understand the performance issues you think are related.) I apologize if my subsequent example about "educates" was unclear. I was saying that specifying an agent does not make sense in that case, whereas in the case of a ban it does. SashiRolls (talk) 10:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I do think it's worthwhile to understand that you are not competent to make certain judgements when coming into a new project and don't have the theoretical background for the way it's decisions are being made. Being explicit about this isn't
I think I spent a reasonable amount of time trying to explain to you the issues. I offered an opportunity of how statements like slavery being banned can be stated. Instead of accepting that suggestion and trying to come to a consenus around it you tried to engage in a discussion that leads nowhere. You weren't sticking to bringing the task in any meaningful way.
I do not think such nonsense is worthwhile. If I did, I would comment on your difficulties expressing simple ideas. "I offered an opportunity of how statements like slavery being banned can be stated." <-- you did no such thing, you proposed a new property (bans) after I proposed the property "banned in", then freaked out when I asked you why you preferred the active voice.
I understand English is not your native language, but this is not an excuse for saying things like "5 is 1 not N," as though that should be immediately comprehensible to anyone reading. Writing so poorly is not spending a "reasonable amount of time trying to explain the issues".
It's as you wish... we can be explicit if you wish about my perception of your incompetence too if you'd like. Or we can try to understand one another and be respectful and help explain things where necessary. We *have* moved the question closer to a solution (for slavery). As you may have seen I created the item "ban of involuntary servitude" (borrowing ArthurP's suggestion about reification). I used your suggested ("in jurisdiction" -> US) as a qualifier when I assigned "instance of ban of involuntary servitude" to the 13th amendment of the US Constitution, because that part of your communication was clear. When you are clear, you see, I listen to what you have to say.
We are still no closer to a solution characterizing the general predicative relation for which I suggested creating the property (banned in) ... but a work-around structure now exists for slavery thanks to this new item (ban of involuntary servitude). This probably begins to address the fact that until now apparently WikiData could not provide a list of dates when slavery was banned around the world. That was one of the goals of presenting the property proposal concerning "banned in", but by no means the only one. If you wish to help improve the descriptive capabilities of Wikidata, I look forward to your continued participation. If instead you want to assert your skills in ungrammatical sentences, I think I'll pass. SashiRolls (talk) 21:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
"5 is 1 not N" is fine grammar-wise. Grammar-wise it's like "water is blue not red" It might not be understandable for people who don't no what 1 or N means in this context because they never dealt with the theory of algorithmic complexity but that doesn't make it ungrammatical.
The pattern of using instance of (P31) is this way goes against the way we use that property.
Since nobody every mentioned 5... it is mysterious why you would make the claim 5 is 1 not N. The problem is one of anaphora.
Please try to write grammatically. It is disrespectful to take so little time writing that you mistake "no" for "know" and "is" for "in" (especially when accusing others of being incompetent). I also very seriously doubt the truth of the content in sentences #1, #2, & #3. The thirteenth amendment is indeed an instance of a ban of involuntary servitude, as was the emancipation proclamation in the Russian Empire, as was the Slave Trade Act. It looks like very much like you're just being stubborn here...
Could you please help with my bulk of user reports?
I mostly work on other aspects of Wikidata then counter-vandalism. I agree with Jasper, that it likely would be good if you had admin rights to deal with issues like this.
What aspects do you work on?
Policy work, defining new properties and deleting existing ones are what's most important to me.
After watching the interview of the Archive.org person today, I sent them an email asking about having the Archive contribute to backup Wikidata reference links.
Prem raj P
Do you know what the deal with this item is?
I don't know for certain. It seems that either the subject of the item or someone who wants to promote the subject spend a lot of effort to add information to the item and engage in vandalism against people who remove bad claims from it.
Hi @ChristianKl:, Please note that your signature is using obsolete
<font> tags, which causes obsolete HTML tag lint errors. You are encouraged to change your signature code.
font color="#0000EE">'''ChristianKl'''</ font> ❪[[User talk:ChristianKl|✉]]❫
< ="#0000EE">'''ChristianKl'''</> ❪[[User talk:ChristianKl|✉]]❫
I changed it in my profile.
Wikipedia-Artikel "nennen", einbinden
Hallo Christian, ich habe das Datenobjekt Q86431433 angelegt. Es beschreibt die MARKE, nicht ein Unternehmen. Meiner Meinung nach kann da auch der Artikel in der en.wp eingebunden werden, also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O2_(brand). Mir zeigt das System aber immer einen Fehler an, wenn ich das machen will, keine Ahnung warum. In diesem Kontext sehe ich, dass die Artikelverbindungen (Interwikilinks) völlig durcheinander gehen. Es gibt einen Wirrwarr von Artikeln über die Marke und solchen über Unternehmen. Kannst du helfen? ~~~~
Ein Artikel kann zu einem Zeitpunkt immer nur auf einem Wikidata Datenobjekt verlinkt sein. Du must also entweder den bestehenden Interwiki Link auf Q1759255 zuerst entfernen oder dort das Move-Gadget einsetzen.
Lieber Christian. Hat geklappt, danke dir für den Hinweis. Grüße - Peter
Regarding your deletions
Hi, I saw that you recently deleted a bunch of concepts that are referenced from Lexeme:L3828
- Deletion log 08:09 ChristianKl talk contribs deleted page Q76824946 (Does not meet the notability policy: content was: "have", and the only contributor was "So9q" (talk))
- Deletion log 08:08 ChristianKl talk contribs deleted page Q76663911 (Does not meet the notability policy: content was: "fullfill", and the only contributor was "So9q" (talk))
- Deletion log 08:08 ChristianKl talk contribs deleted page Q76829423 (Does not meet the notability policy: content was: "have", and the only contributor was "So9q" (talk))
- Deletion log 08:08 ChristianKl talk contribs deleted page Q76831286 (content was: "have", and the only contributor was "So9q" (talk))
- Deletion log 08:07 ChristianKl talk contribs deleted page Q76828907 (content was: "have", and the only contributor was "So9q" (talk))
- Deletion log 08:07 ChristianKl talk contribs deleted page Q76662439 (Does not meet the notability policy: content was: "have", and the only contributor was "So9q" (talk))
- Deletion log 08:07 ChristianKl talk contribs deleted page Q76661581 (Does not meet the notability policy: content was: "have", and the only contributor was "So9q" (talk))
- Deletion log 08:01 ChristianKl talk contribs deleted page Q76822222 (Not needed, it's not like we don't have existing items to model obligation)
How come you did not discuss this first, say in the RfD page? Did you forget to check whether they were linked to a lexeme = fulfilling a structural need?
The lexeme is now effectively crippled following your deletions and I cannot find replacement Q-items that cover the senses (e.g. we have no concept of organize or organizing, neither of grabbing or holding). Could you please restore these and merge them discuss merges on the talk page of the items with the Q-items you think they a duplicate of?
I believe these all are notable as they fulfill a structural need. If you do not agree with this I suggest you join the discussions on Wikidata talk:Lexicographical data where the prevailing opinion is that a Q-item that fits a noun or adjective is not suitable to add to a verb form of (roughly) the same sense which is what lead me to create these items.
Thanks in advance for restoring these.
I did and I explained the core of the issue to you at the project chat.
The description for item for this sense (P5137) is "concept corresponding to this sense of a lexeme". The delete items were about words. Words are names of concepts and not the same thing as the concept towards which they point and as such no good values for item for this sense (P5137).
On the talk page of the property you see a suggestion of how verbs are linked with examples like Ex. 3: be (exist) --(item for this sense (P5137))--> existence (Q468777) You find that it's not linked to a new item about "be" that's P31 "word".
I'm not aware of any discussion that changed what item for this sense (P5137) was defined to do to something else. If you think such a discussion happened, feel free to link to it.
Thanks! I was not aware of that discussion. Its now more clear to me how to link properly. 😃
Following you logic above, don't you want to delete all these that have P31:word and no sitelinks?
Yes, I deleted most of them. There's on Japanese that I sent to Requests for deletion given that I don't speak Japanese and don't know enough for what it is about.
You wrote here that you created anki decks from wikidata. Could you elaborate how you did that exactly? I would like to extract danish pictures, words and senses.
I didn't create anything automatically. In general most of the time you spend with an Anki card will be reviewing the card and not creating the card. I simply looked up anatomical structures and got the translations from Wikidata.
Hey, are you good with QuickStatements and OpenDocument?
I'm kinda running into some trouble. I've copied a couple of hundred identifier strings into OpenDocument and i need to find a way to insert double quotes around them without having to do it manually.
I'm not using OpenDocument a lot. There's likely a person who knows more about it's commands.
I also have another problem where QS keeps placing my qualifiers in reverse order. For example if i write:
|P50||Q83728||P1545||"1"||P1810||"Australian Associated Press"|
QuickStatement will instead give me this (named as: Australian Associated Press, series ordinal: 1)
I'm unsure why you chose my talk page for the issue.
Idk, i just noticed you making a lot of QS items and hoped you could help me
I don't think I have used QS in the last year and the quantity of items I created with it isn't that high.
I am writing again. The Primary Source Tool is not working, then I achieved 45397 triples with more than 99% precision. It is enough for upload these triples to Wikidata directly?. JLuzc (talk) 04:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Open up a new topic on the Project Chat about it or create a bot request and we will see how the community decides.
Structured Data - computer-aided tagging designs
I've published a design consultation for the computer-aided tagging tool. Please look over the page and participate on the talk page. If you haven't read over the project page, it might be helpful to do so first. The tool will hopefully be ready by the end of this month (October 2019), so timely feedback is important. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)