FreightXPress

Welcome to Wikidata, FreightXPress!

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!

Multichill (talk) 22:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Removing commons links?

Hi FreightXPress, why do you remove links to commons (e.g. [1]) ? When you do that, the interwiki links vanish from the corresponding Commons article (see bottom of left margin in commons:Category:Russian locomotive class Щ.

Moreover, the link you created with Commons category (P373) leads nowhere. ---- LaddΩ chat ;) 12:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@Laddo: I removed the prefix "Category:" in the two Commons-category statements that I added, thanks for making me aware of this mistake; the links now work. The links under "other sites" potentially block proper linking in case a Wikipedia has a category for one of the classes. Very common for ship classes, e.g. Category:Rodina-class motorship (Q13314346). FreightXPress (talk) 13:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

OK I see your point. However it might take years before a matching category item gets created, and in the mean time there would be no links to any Wikipedia on that Commons item (because no Wikidata item would link to the Commons category). Why not keep that Commons link on the topic item and remove it only when a conflict occurs? -- LaddΩ chat ;) 03:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

BTW you might be interested in point III of this Request for Comments, where a pretty large number of WD contributors agreed that, in the medium term, a single Wikidata item should handle sitelinks to both categories and articles. -- LaddΩ chat ;) 03:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Laddo: - I did it only in the two instances and after your notification I did stop. I will think about that later. FreightXPress (talk) 12:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Laddo: I restored it for Q4345711. I don't recall what the other item was. FreightXPress (talk) 00:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

There were also [2], [3] and [4]. -- LaddΩ chat ;) 01:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@Laddo: Thanks a lot. Restored these too. FreightXPress (talk) 01:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Changes to vessel class

Please see this discussion] on en:wiki - Your changes to the vessel class field may have broken a bunch of Infoboxes that are (attempting to) import data from Wikidata.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Please provide details how that field is used in English Wikipedia at Property talk:P289. I tried to understand en:Template:Infobox ship characteristics but didn't see how the problem could be based on my edits to the vessel class field. FreightXPress (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Lots of changes

Hi! I don’t mean to be rude, but you’re absolutely flooding the list of unpatrolled recent changes, making it hard to fight spam. Would it be possible to postpone your edits until you’re an autoconfirmed user and your edits are patrolled automatically? (Shouldn’t be more than a couple days.) —DSGalaktos (talk) 10:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

DSGalaktos - Ooops. Will slow down. FreightXPress (talk) 12:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@FreightXPress: appreciated, and still thanks a lot for all your contributions of course :) —DSGalaktos (talk) 14:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

P31 vs. ship classes

Hi FreightXPress, me again. There were painful discussion about the use of ship class items as values for P31. The consensus was to retain property vessel class (P289) and thus assign the ship type (Q2235308) in instance of (P31). Please have a look at this discussion and this pending bot request and let's discuss what you plan to do before proceeding with massive changes on this subject. Cheers -- LaddΩ chat ;) 03:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I saw your statement on the bot request. Did you take time to read this discussion? A community decision was taken. And I disagree with your statement that "instanceOf allways to be as precise as possible". If you are describing an automobile engine, will you create a P31 value for "6-cylinder twin-overhead-cam direct-injection 24-valve US-built engine"? I believe that "instance of" is for the fundamental nature of the item, and other attributes exist to describe secondary characteristics (engine configuration (P1002), valvetrain configuration (P1078), vessel class (P289), location of creation (P1071)...) Though this can be debated, the case of ship class was settled, at least. -- LaddΩ chat ;) 12:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Laddo: The reasoning regarding fundamental nature sounds good. But why should the ship class not be regarded a fundamental nature? Ship color, location of final assembly etc. are probably not fundamental. If you know the color of a ship, you don't know much else. If you know the location of final assembly you will very often not know much else. But if you know the ship class, you will know a lot. FreightXPress (talk) 16:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

A bit busy now, will respond tomorrow AM. -- LaddΩ chat ;) 01:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I see a problem for classes of locomotives, e.g. British Rail Class 58 (Q1530790) can be subclass of different classes. But this is not a problem for individual instances / produced items. FreightXPress (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

User page

Some anonymous user added content to your user page. I’ve reverted it, since it seemed to be rubbish (Google Translate didn’t give me anything sensible). If that was you, apologies. —DSGalaktos (talk) 12:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@DSGalaktos: Thank you for removing it and informing me! FreightXPress (talk) 14:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Deleted it, feel free to but your own content on there ;) --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 06:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely for abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest it by editing this page and adding the following template with a suitable reason: {{unblock|1=<the reason for your unblock request>}}. If you are logged in, and the option has not been disabled, you may also email the blocking administrator (or any administrator from this list) by using this form. See Wikidata:Guide to appealing blocks for more information.

---

⁠

Persuant to m:Steward_requests/Checkuser#FreightXPress.40wikidata, this account has been blocked indefinitely as an unauthorized sockpuppet of User:Tamawashi. It is required that any and all appeals of this block be done on the main account only.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@m:Steward_requests/Checkuser#FreightXPress.40wikidata

I am not a sock of anyone. "he often ends up in disagreement with other users" - since when is that relevant for CheckUser? Apart from that, Tamawashi looks like an abandoned account, what does that account has to do with me? Even if my account would be a secondary account of Tamawashi it would not fall under d:Wikidata:Alternate accounts#Illegitimate uses. As far as editing behavior is concerned, the edits where not anything near complex, nor is "immediately focused on ... classification questions" really surprising in a project that is centered around classification of things. Revealing information about IPs is breach of privacy.

Now, why am I blocked in Wikidata? I also would like to disclose that I had a disagreement with User:Bene*, the one that opened the case here. I understand that this is fine, but it has some extra smell.

Best regards. FreightXPress (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The policy is clear: you had to declare this as an alternate for it to be legitimate. Either way it was deceptive to the community, because CheckUser has made it clear that you weren't a new user, but rather, a returning old one (and the behavorial evidence was suspicious enough to warrant a check). You also have a history of sockpuppetry here. Hence it remains that this account is blocked indefinitely.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

"you had to declare this as an alternate for it to be legitimate" - well, it was not an alternate. "You also have a history of sockpuppetry here." - This is funny. You accuse an account of sockpuppetry. Then this account has a history of sockpuppetry simply by having been accused of it. Then you justify blocking with that declaration-derived sockpuppet history. And all, because 1) User:Bene* had some other opinion on content than me and 2) some CheckUser software correlates two accounts. NSA could not have done better. FreightXPress (talk) 21:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

By "history of sockpuppetry" I meant not just limited to this account, but others too. See Wikidata:CheckUser for what a check means. The check was performed because we had reasonable suspicion based on your behavior, but could not be certain just off that. If you wish to appeal this block in terms of not being a sockpuppet, add {{unblock}} as mentioned by the red notice above. However my opinion is that the block is justified because the behavorial and technical (CheckUser) evidence was quite conclusive.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

"The check was performed because we had reasonable suspicion based on your behavior" - NSA/TSA could not have done better. Reading what User:Bene* wrote it looks more like this user disliked some of my edits and then went to declare some of my activities as suspicious. Then the CheckUser was made in a way that it reported "confirmed". But what was confirmed? No, it did not confirm a hit with Tamawashi, but with some other accounts. People even breach privacy by talking about the IPs that the different users used. "technical (CheckUser) evidence was quite conclusive" - really? And where did it show "d:Wikidata:Alternate accounts#Illegitimate uses" that you took as justification for blocking?

Three bullet points are listed 1) "Manipulating discussions" - did that happen? 2) "Circumventing sanctions or blocks" - I see, you chose a user that was blocked and then declare another account to be an alternate account, then you derive from that it is circumventing a block. 3) "Accounts that do not serve a productive purpose" - User:Bene* wrote "while edits are constructive at beginning, he often ends up in disagreement with other users" - as soon as there is disagreement the user "ends up", and the edits suddenly are not constructive? How is that?

Summarizing: 1) Did I manipulate discussions [...] through the use of multiple accounts? - No. 2) Did I circumvent a block/sanction. - No. 3) Did I "Creat[e] an account just to joke around with" No.

Conclusion: No illegitimate use established. So, that means, the block is just for "didn't like your edits". FreightXPress (talk) 02:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Did you read the policy in full? The list is non-exhaustive; the point is that an illegitimate alternate account was used to deceive the community. By the way, you will not be unblocked unless you file a formal request using the unblock template as instructed, because I'm not inclined to unblock you. Also, CheckUser confirmation has a transitive property: confirmation with established socks of Tamawashi is confirmation with Tamawashi.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Adding onto the above, why did you create these additional accounts? Your account certainly falls under criterion 3, as you had no real justification to create another account. --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 07:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@Caliburn: I did not "create these additional accounts". Why do you ask me why when you know I did not? And 3) is "Accounts that do not serve a productive purpose" - the account was productive until being blocked. So, no, it does not fall under 3).

@Jasper Deng: "Did you read the policy in full?" - Yes. "The list is non-exhaustive" - The string "exhaustive" does not exist in the page. If you claim a list, that is not marked as "non-exhaustive" and not marked "exhaustive" is automatically "non-exhaustive", then again: NSA could not have done better.

Regarding "CheckUser confirmation has a transitive property: confirmation with established socks of Tamawashi is confirmation with Tamawashi" - What are "established socks of Tamawashi"? FreightXPress (talk) 11:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

This is quickly getting to the point of "I didn't hear that": the policy explicitly states that alternate accounts cannot be used for deception of the community, and CheckUser was conclusive, so it is futile to continue denying abuse of multiple accounts. In addition, your comments and other behavior were similar enough such that I have no doubt that you are a sockpuppet. As for "established socks of Tamawashi" see Category:Wikidata sockpuppets of Tamawashi.--Jasper Deng (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Jasper Deng: "the policy explicitly states that alternate accounts cannot be used for deception of the community" - see above. It is not an alternate account of any other account, and even less it is an account that was used for deception. It clearly does not fall under d:Wikidata:Alternate accounts#Illegitimate uses.

CheckUser was conclusive? No, it wasn't. Apart of my username three other usernames are mentioned in the CheckUser:

• User:Tamawashi: last edit is given as "23:12, 27 July 2014" and user was blocked indefinitely only 15 May 2015.
• User:Andrea Shan: edited from November 2014 to 15:21, 5 December 2014 - no CheckUser for connection to Tamawashi found. Does it exist, if yes, where is it?
• User:IP-80.134.90.212: edited only 8 April to 10 April 2015 - no CheckUser for connection to Tamawashi nor Andrea Shan found. Does it exist, if yes, where is it? The CheckUser claims there is some kind of connection with User:IP-80.134.90.212. First of all, any statement about my IP-range is a breach of privacy. Second, I looked it up, this IP is in a dynamic range of a large provider and there can be many users in that range.

Actually - how many are in that range? If CheckUser does not take that into account, it is an untrustworthy tool to begin with. FreightXPress (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Point two of the illegitimate accounts section: "Circumventing sanctions or blocks". You have been blocked multiple times yet still continue to edit as opposed to following channels to appeal said blocks. The CheckUser evidence was conclusive that all accounts were linked by technical evidence, with a very vague comment on the IP per the privacy policy. Technical and behavioural evidence were used to conclude the connection of Tamawashi and yourself. The conclusive decision was made based on technical IP data, useragent data and then factoring in behavioural evidence by our community.

Per a quick chat earlier, if you do not wish to appeal your block through the correct methods of {{Unblock}} and wish to continue as you are, your talk page access will be revoked. Thank you, John F. Lewis (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@John F. Lewis:

• "80.134.90.212" and 91 is "a very vague comment on the IP"? What can be less vague?
• "Circumventing sanctions or blocks" - where did any of the three accounts do that?
  • The second account given above is Andrea Shan - but Tamawashi has not been blocked when Andrea Shan edited - i.e. there was no "Circumventing sanctions or blocks"
  • The third account given above is IP-80.134.90.212 - but neither Tamawashi nor Andrea Shan have been blocked when IP-80.134.90.212 edited - i.e. there was no "Circumventing sanctions or blocks"
• "factoring in behavioural evidence by our community" - It was Bene who had a content related disagreement with me, and then Japser Deng hopped in. Quite small that community. Apart from that, where is the "behavioral evidence"? The description given for my behavior was quite short, it could be matched with the behavior of thousands of persons currently living on this planet.

FreightXPress (talk) 14:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

As you do not wish to appeal the block but much rather par take in unnecessary arguments regarding policy interpretation and whether comments are valid, I have revoked your talk page access. You may appeal the talk page removal or the block itself via email to any administrator. Thank you. John F. Lewis (talk) 16:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)