User talk:Ogoorcs

Jump to navigation Jump to search

About this board

changement du libellé fr de P248

16
Hsarrazin (talkcontribs)

https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Property:P248&diff=761515879&oldid=761515010&diffmode=source

Bonsoir, je découvre ce changement alors que je suis en train d'éditer. A-t-il été discuté (et approuvé) quelque part avant d'être mis en oeuvre ? si oui, où ?

c'est extrêmement déstabilisant de voir soudain apparaître un nouveau libellé (prioritaire) pour une propriété qu'on utilise des dizaines de fois par jour...

Why this sudden change, without previous debate I can find, in a language that is apparently not yours (since you're Italian), and without mention on Wikidata:Bistro in fr ?

This is very disturbing for contributors who suddenly see a very used property's label changing.

Please provide link to a discussion and/or consensus about this, with fr contributors...

Ogoorcs (talkcontribs)

>This is very disturbing for contributors who suddenly see a very used property's label changing.

The previous label is still available as an alias. The main label was changed because in the course of 2018 (january) a subtle change was made in the English description, that was previously present in French but not in all languages, that could lead users to think that the property had to be constrained to have instances of "work" and "source of information" as values, thus limiting many use cases.

Futher, it would have no sense in having "stated in" (or its French equivalent): "Microsoft". It is useful and meaninful such a statement for a reference to 'https://microsoft.com' for example.

I think the 'source of XX' label is more general and appropriate to describe "human" and "organization" values.

Hsarrazin (talkcontribs)

So, because en contributors changed their description, you, yourself, alone, decided to change the label in a language that is not yours, without even discussing it with the concerned language community... do you really think your understanding of French is better than ours ? fr description already is explicit about the "source only" use

Please let french contributors discuss and decide the modification of fr-labels if they think it's necessary... do NOT do this without discussion in the proper place -> Wikidata:Bistro

Ogoorcs (talkcontribs)

>So, because en contributors changed their description, you, yourself, alone, decided to change the label

That's why they call it wiki.

>in a language that is not yours, without even discussing it with the concerned language community...

Wikidata is a multi-language project. A property has to convey the same meaning through different languages; I know some French and our languages are very similar; I perfectly know the difference between 'affirmé dans' and 'source of déclaration', they translate literally in Italian.

>do you really think your understanding of French is better than ours?

So in French is it correct to say 'affirmé dans': 'Polydore Vergil'? That's the example usage reported in the property page, not something I invented on my own.

>fr description already is explicit about the "source only" use

That is the problem. The property is not only about works, but any other information source, too. Simply 'affirmé dans' is not correct when you are using humans, organization or other types of items for your statements.

>Please let french contributors discuss and decide the modification of fr-labels if they think it's necessary... do NOT do this without discussion in the proper place

Again, if your community decides to ignore how the property works, I do not have to discuss it in your language's project page. At max we can open a section in the discussion page if you think I am wrong, but again, I simply replaced the label to reflect property usage.

Hsarrazin (talkcontribs)

do you understand the meaning of "consensus" ? a few months ago, the discussion for the right phrasing for the label of date of death (P570) in French lasted for weeks...

you cannot replace something so used without even discussing it... please discuss it on Wikidata:Bistro

Ogoorcs (talkcontribs)

One can't ignore the fact that 'declaré dans' is not appropriate with human values, so I have to moral obligation to change the label.

If you think there is a better way to express it you are welcome to discuss it where you want (preferably in the discussion page and in English (because there are not only French contributors)), but anyway we can't have an obviously wrong label and so since 'source de la déclaration', which is at least correct, can stay as a temporary label.

Hsarrazin (talkcontribs)

affirmé PAR is ok for works, databases, and human beings also...

Ogoorcs (talkcontribs)

It is okay for me, too. As a native speaker, I would really appreciate if you edited the description in a way that respect all information sources.

I took 'source of la déclaration' only because it was generic enough and already listed in the aliases for a long time. :-D

Hsarrazin (talkcontribs)

already done

Andrew Su (talkcontribs)

setting aside the relative merits of one label versus another, I agree that changes in labels are a big deal and should be discussed on the talk page before making any change. While wikidata is indeed a Wiki, I think label changes should have a higher threshold for consensus relative to adding another statement (for example). Best, Andrew Su (talk) 19:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Hsarrazin (talkcontribs)

That is totally my point, especially on a property used so much as this one... Thanks.

Ogoorcs (talkcontribs)

@Andrew_Su:, there is a section about the label change in the discussion page.

Also, a priori thresholds only bring inaction. You can check in how many items I've opened discussions left without replies for months: most of them still rest unaswered.

If I didn't edit the label directly, probably both of you didn't have partecipated in the discussion.

Futher, dull bureaucrats especially like a priori discussions.

If label changes, which are one click undoable, are unwelcomed, discussions happens the same.

A priori discussions are the same as an useless preference:

   Is the annoyance or inefficiency significant, or did it cost them 1 second doing something that users do once per week on average? If it's just some trivial thing, then the extra feature or preference probably costs more than it's worth, even if you can't make things Just Work.

source: https://ometer.com/preferences.html

Hsarrazin (talkcontribs)

if you ping nobody, nobody will see this...

If you want people to discuss with you, you need to tell them... put a message on the Project Chat... and for things concerning French language, on the fr language PC which is Wikidata:Bistro. I can assure you discussions there can be very heated...

Ogoorcs (talkcontribs)

If I didn't like a change, I would go on the discussion page of the user who did it (the same as you did), discover that an issue has already been opened on the argument and talk there.

Probably even a new wiki user would do that.

If the discussion would heat up, an issue on the item page could be opened linking the user page discussion.

This way only interested users would intervene in the discussion; on the contrary, on project page lots of bureaucrats, trolls and notorious troublemakers who do not really have to say something meaningful would argument and the status quo or opinion of more charismatic and notorious user groups would prevail.

Aaaand that's one of the reasons many wikis (like itwiki) still don't have Flow enabled in the preferences.

Hsarrazin (talkcontribs)

If you compare wp and wd on their practices, changing a ''Property label'' like you did, is equivalent to changing the way a very used template works... this is not the best way to get people to follow your point... this is the best way to infuriate contributors who want to be able to work !

Ogoorcs (talkcontribs)

Why is that? The property is accessible in the same way as before. Changing labels does not change at all the way properties work.

In any case, did you notice how in the property discussion page already two users came to not discuss my argument, but to state how their usage is the correct one despite property proposal and initial description? LOL

Reply to "changement du libellé fr de P248"

profession vs occupation

3
Summary by Ogoorcs

Profession and occupation carry different meanings. Still to avoid trouble Wikidata users prefer not to distinguish between them sometimes.

Infovarius (talkcontribs)
Ogoorcs (talkcontribs)

I'll answer to you as fast as I can!

Ogoorcs (talkcontribs)

Well, that element was driving me crazy the other day. I was trying to properly translate the first article of Italian Constitution:

"L'italia è una Repubblica fondata sul Lavoro";

of which the literal translation is

"Italy is a Republic based on Labour".

Unfortunately I've found that the concept expressed in the wikipedia articles linked to labour (Q268378) differ to some extent through the projects: for example English Wikipedia completely lacks the concept (on the contrary Russian and Italian wikipedias overlap in many ways, so I hope you can help me here!), so I was trying to properly define and distinguish the elements occupation (Q12737077), job (Q192581) and profession (Q28640).

According to what I have seen, a proper distinction of profession and occupation needs to unlink first all those pages who differ significatively. For now I can only say that while in Italian having a profession implies receiving a money remuneration, an occupation such as the one defined in Wikidata (that can also be an hobby), obviously doesn't imply any money profit, so they differ.

Why did you create Q28777282 (IMDB ID)?

7
Summary by Ogoorcs

Someone thought that IDs should not have their items.

ArthurPSmith (talkcontribs)
Ogoorcs (talkcontribs)

Hi.

I don't feel you accusation is just, first of all because if I ever overcame an estabilished policy I didn't do it on purpose. Further, "my error" was based on non-updated instructions, in fact I have followed the "Wikidata usage instructions" for the property:

"for external identifiers, the linked item can be an item about the identifier itself; alternatively the linked item can be the database or other source that defines the identifier".

"Alternatively" doesn't imply a "mandatory choice".

I think that after the community reach agreement on some policy, it should update the data according to that, or at least verify that everything is in order. If I am to use your manners, I should have to tell you "You partecipated to that discussion, then why you didn't check coherence of the property page?"

Anyway in the case of IMDb ID I don't think it is harmful to define what it is, since a simple result on google doesn't immediately define what is this ID. In general I think this property remains very useful until properties aren't included in the default search field categories.

ArthurPSmith (talkcontribs)

I wasn't assuming bad faith, I'm sorry you interpreted my query that way. I assumed you were simply new around here and weren't aware of important background. In this case, you *removed* the link from the property to IMDB in this edit: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Property%3AP345&type=revision&diff=448726406&oldid=448669144 and your new item Internet Movie Database ID (Q28777282) has almost zero content, no sitelinks, no sources, and also very importantly no link or other relations to Internet Movie Database (Q37312). So the link from the property to the database is gone, you have made wikidata less useful. If you are having trouble searching for properties, ask around - there is a trick of prepending "P:" (the letter P with a colon character) that lets you go directly to property searches. I recommend that you revert your changes in the property and request deletion of the new item.

Ogoorcs (talkcontribs)

Ok, everything should be in order now: we have different and (I hope) complete elements for title IDs and name IDs (I ask you to confirm legitimacy for the "list of" property here, but it should be okay in theory). We still lacks elements for company and characters IDs, but I'm too tired right now. I am not exactly sure if the other template elements (the ones about episodes and awards) have a correspondent property in Wikidata, so I won't do that for now.

Thank you for the P: trick, I thought it was broken since I wasn't getting suggestions for properties in the dropdown menu (I tend to not use the search page and open pages in new tab)!

A note on having previously left the work in half: just some hour before doing that edit, I read about and created element for Cunningham's Law (Q28778432), an observation attributed to the creator of wiki concept, Ward Cunningham, saying that internet users tend to reply more promptly to uncorrect statements than to (probably more important) other stuff.

I tend to stick to that in my contributions

  • first because I find it true, and in fact I have received a message from you about this little edit first and then about my edits to the undoubtly more important "has part of the class" property;
  • secondly because I think entity linking is way more important to attract new users to expect older ones to complete an element on their own;
  • having found a lot of important items (to me) left in half or blank in my language has driven my first edits, made me feel useful; I think that could be valid for others too.

PS: duplicatestatement works for you? It is the main reason I usually don't reference my statements.

ArthurPSmith (talkcontribs)

Hmm, I'm not sure I understand your purpose in doing this, but if you really find it useful I suppose it's ok. However, now that we have multiple P1629's on IMDB id I added back in the link directly to the database itself, as that is the one I find most useful.

Ogoorcs (talkcontribs)

The purpose is reporting correct information. IMDb has at least five different unique identifiers; here we are incorrectly using the single property "IMDb ID" to refer to all of them since the primary source actually say that the only ever defined IMDb ID is an ID associated with users, not title, nor name or anything else.

Unfortunately (?) P1629 for IMDB ID property must have more than one value because it is a property that describe exactly more than one object, so directly linking the database instead of the various ID really makes wikidata less useful, because as it is, we couldn't figure what our IMDb ID actually refer to (not for everyone is easy to understand that tt-number refer to a movie and nm-number refer to actors).

I think that this one case explain why directly linking the database is a patchwork solution for when we don't want to properly document what we are using. Anyway, you are doing the opposite of what you said in the same discussion you previously linked when speaking to @Egon_Willighagen:, @pigsonthewing:.

I could find more useful to have a single element for many different concepts together, but I don't violate entity linking principle because of that.

EDIT: Sorry for being acid, I've seen only now your edit, I thought you deleted my entries.

Egon Willighagen (talkcontribs)

I have no idea what this is about, but after scanning it I just want to know that many databases have multiple identifiers, and things have separate approaches... for PubChem this resulted in PubChem CIDs and SIDs, both with a separate property. But this likely does not contribute to the discussion. --~~~~

all UIDs vandalized by JakobVoss

2
Summary by Ogoorcs

I didn't undo all the statements linked. If someone else wants to help, it is appreciated.

78.55.64.116 (talkcontribs)
Ogoorcs (talkcontribs)

Thank you for reporting! I hope you would like to contribute to this interesting discussion

Summary by Ogoorcs

Never got a reply.

Billinghurst (talkcontribs)

Worthwhile discussing the changing of a label prior to doing it.

Ogoorcs (talkcontribs)

are you talking about 'source of information'?

Summary by Ogoorcs

Semantic distances between words still have no meaning on Wikidata.

Moroboshi (talkcontribs)

Description of the label must be short and serve only to disambiguate. They do not need to contain every details of the items (for example on Q352 we don’t say in the description that he was also a Q4991371 or Q1028181, because they are not useful for disambiguate and he is not notable for his military service or his painting. The description of the person on en.wiki is a good guide because typically many more people contributed to it and there is a stronger consensus on what are the main profession to cite.

Ogoorcs (talkcontribs)

For a politician, being a criminal and having being condemned many times for serious crimes is not a detail, but an essential component of his description. En.wiki is not updated about the result of the procedings as it.wiki, so doen't explicitly states its criminal status in the first line, so it is not a good guide at all in this case, since it lacks of completeness, while it.wiki presentation is so full of bias that does not even mention its media tycoon status. I think my edit is actuallythe most complete and bias free until now. The need for shortness and disambiguation does not have to obstruct informativeness. Also, for a head of state being a criminal is an attribute that can't in any way be related to being a painter.

Moroboshi (talkcontribs)

In the italian definition there is "imprenditore" instead of "media tycoon". Berlusconi was (or is) active also in edilizia owns (or owned) also construction enterprises and department stores, so the more generic "imprenditore" is more precise.

Ogoorcs (talkcontribs)

Your arguments are fallacious and they even contain wrong information.

Description of the label must be short and serve only to disambiguate.

Descriptions first of all describe, then do whatever they're supposed to do, otherwise we would call them identifiers and we already have lots of them; other than this simple consideration on the meaning of words, Wikidata help explicitly says: a description describes and disambiguates a label using information that is free of controversy and bias. Further, if one would use your point of view, Silvio Berlusconi (Q11860) would not even need a description, being the only item on Wikidata having said label.

They do not need to contain every details of the items

which implies you think that field of work (P101): criminal (Q2159907) is a detail, not a statement notable as his main occupations and in fact you dare to compare his being a criminal to having been a soldier or a painter, statement that are not even reported on his page. I make you notice how you didn't provide any reason for what you say to be true.

On the contrary, this is why what you sustain is wrong: serious crimes and irregularities match most of his activities. In particular he was condemned in his role of businessman (when condemned for tax fraud (Q3806932) and accounting fraud (Q4842931)), as a politician (when condemned for corruption (Q366)) and as an individual (embezzlement (Q157833)). This indeed proves that his criminal status can't be a detail because he was proved it committed crimes many times in the exercise of both the ones you consider his main occupations. A bias free description can't omit an attribute distinctive and common to many of the subject activities.

Another argument one could oppose to the actual description is that his being a politician or a businessman is utterly outshined by having been an head of state or worse an head of state proved to be a criminal. You can go see the descriptions of the other members of this class.

In the italian definition there is "imprenditore" instead of "media tycoon". Berlusconi was (or is) active also in edilizia owns (or owned) also construction enterprises and department stores, so the more generic "imprenditore" is more precise

Encompassing many statements with a single phrase is not being precise, or we would describe any entity with an unique label only as "human". It seems to me that you confuse Precision and recall (Q2359161) in what you consider important in a description.

If you don't have any other argument or again you won't reply to mine, I'll redo the edits and copy this conversation on element discussion page and eventually project board.

Moroboshi (talkcontribs)

Regarding the example Aldof Hiltr is listed as politician, soldier, painter, politica writer, revolutionary, statesman, author and antisemite. As you said definition do not need to contain every details, so the content of the description must be decided by consensus. Your opinion on the importance of the criminal record of Silvio Berlusconi is your personal opinion, not confirmed in in the incipit of any other major wiki (If this is true that they are "incomplete" or "full of bias", should be simple to change them by consensus) and you were already reverted by at least two other people.

Ogoorcs (talkcontribs)

I did not say that definition do not need to contain every details of the items, I italicized the parts of your message I was replying to...

My argument was about to prove that being a criminal is not a detail in describing his career, providing a sound argument to it (the fact that he committed many serious crimes many times and during all his main occupations); I invite you to do the same and not simply to state that his criminal record is important because I say so. Also, your argument about consensus to be found on the wikis doesn't work, since "major wikis" don't even explictly say that he's a criminal even if it's proved true, the reason being their bias.

PS: Hitler is not even listed as a criminal. Using the fact that negative aspects of Hitler conduct are not formalized in Wikidata to say that the criminal record of a public figure is not important is very unwise and imprudent.

PPS: my edit has been considered vandalism and refused to be discussed until now. Anyway this is not the first time this kind of behaviour happened these days with people from *pedias, although thankfully has been resolved without many troubles.

Previous version of the same line: "Instead of trying to defend Berlusconi reputation using the fact that negative aspects of Hitler conduct are not present on Wikidata, go correct them, you fool."

Moroboshi (talkcontribs)

IMHO the reason is simple that Berlusconi is considered notable for is activity as businessman and politician, not for his judicial history as it was convicted only one time. PS: I ask you to edit the "you fool" phrase above as is a personal attack.

Ogoorcs (talkcontribs)

Notability depends on the audience. Relevance depends on data. If something is not explicitly stated on Wikipedia could be because the present editors don't find notable. If something is listed on Wikidata, it is because it is true according to a reference.

It's tough to believe that we're still discussing about this when you don't even know the facts. Berlusconi has been convicted over seven times: for corruption (Q366), two times for accounting fraud (Q41799931), illegal party financing (Q41799824), perjury (Q3738755), tax fraud (Q3806932). Check the references.

Moroboshi (talkcontribs)

And what difference there is between audience on it.wiki, en.wiki or other main wikis and wikidata? the senteces you cited are listed also on the wikis (there is also a article specifically for the judicial history of Berlusconi: Procedimenti giudiziari a carico di Silvio Berlusconi), and the editors there dont find sufficiently notable to give to Berlusconi the category of "criminale".

Regarding the senteces you are listing also sentences that where not passato in giudicato. Before citing a sentence check also that is a final judgment and is no longer subject to appeal or it can change

Ogoorcs (talkcontribs)

And what difference there is between audience on it.wiki, en.wiki or other main wikis and wikidata?

You're kidding me, right? You write on Wikipedia from 2005 and you want me to believe that you never noticed that what is notable on one Wikipedia could not be notable on another? Of course this is normal because the people that get to decide what is notable on Italian Wikipedia for example are usually not the same that decide what is it on English Wikipedia and viceversa (or you also believe that every wikipedian write on every Wikipedia and Wikidata?).

You want an example? Alejandro Betancourt López (Q15814164) is the chief executive officer (Q484876) of Derwick Associates (Q5263368), he did an operation worth 290 million of dollars in 2015 that made him director (Q1162163) of Pacific Exploration & Production (Q7122670); certainly he's not as much as notable as the owner of Panucci's Pizza;
he's got pages here on Wikidata, on en.wiki and es.wiki, but not on it.wiki, because well, maybe some users are more equal than others.

the senteces you cited are listed also on the wikis (there is also a article specifically for the judicial history of Berlusconi: Procedimenti giudiziari a carico di Silvio Berlusconi), and the editors there dont find sufficiently notable to give to Berlusconi the category of "criminale".

I know that these sentences are listed on a dedicated page on it.wiki, (it is in the references I attached to the convicted of (P1399) statements) but I did not find any recent discussion in which a large group of editors on it.wiki or en.wiki talk exhaustively on the matter of whether a person who was found guilty of all the crimes listed above is or not a criminal.

All the sentences I listed are definitive, meaning that they're from the Court of Cassation (Q1135541) or when not from it they are the last sentences emitted about Berlusconi in that particular trial, meaning that when the court said it was guilty, he did not appeal if there was no penalty. So it is true that those sentences are final. Please, read the references.

EDIT: If in a trial about the assassination of the King, it is proved by the court that I poisoned a well but after some time the real murderer is found, I don't receive any penalty and no trial starts about my poisoning, it remains true that I am a well poisoner.

EDIT2: Another good indicator of why it is of much relevance and very informative to say when a politician is also a criminal: 12% of criminals recorded on Wikidata are politicians.

Moroboshi (talkcontribs)

You're kidding me, right? ...

No I'm not kidding. There is a quantitative and qualitative difference between the long and numerous discussion about the Silvio Berlusoni page on it.wiki and a single discussion between only two user. (About Alejandro Betancourt Lopez, whats the point of the example ? maybe no one is/was interested in writing a page about it)

I know that these sentences are listed on a dedicated page on it.wiki, (it is in the references I attached to the convicted of (P1399) statements) but I did not find any recent discussion in which a large group of editors on it.wiki or en.wiki talk exhaustively on the matter of whether a person who was found guilty of all the crimes listed above is or not a criminal.

Probably there are no new elements to open again the discussion about the incipit.

EDIT: If in a trial about the assassination of the King, it is proved by the court that I poisoned a well but after some time the real murderer is found, I don't receive any penalty and no trial starts about my poisoning, it remains true that I am a well poisoner.

This is true if you have source that say explicitly the name of the real murderer. If you are interpreting the source this is an original research (for example your source for corruption (Q366) is but it say that Berlusoni is aquitted

Ogoorcs (talkcontribs)

There is a quantitative and qualitative difference between the long and numerous discussion about the Silvio Berlusoni page on it.wiki and a single discussion between only two user

Wikipedia and Wikidata are different projects. Maybe Wikipedia doesn't state that Berlusconi is a criminal because through consensus has been decided that it is not relevant enough to say it explicitly, but Wikidata has to do it because the data about him say so. On Wikipedia consensus can impose that crimes are not relevant in describing a politician, on Wikidata available data shows that crime and politics are related in a way that becomes relevant to discriminate in descriptions. If it was not relevant, only 0.1% of criminals were politicians, not 12%.

About Alejandro Betancourt Lopez, whats the point of the example ? maybe no one is/was interested in writing a page about it

How can I discuss with someone that doesn't read the reference I provide? The page about Betancourt was already writtn. It was then been deleted by an authorized user without reaching consensus with the motivation that Betancourt was not notable.

Probably there are no new elements to open again the discussion about the incipit.

My edit is the new element to open the discussion (not on *pedias, god save me).

If you are interpreting the source this is an original research (for example your source for corruption (Q366) says that Berlusoni is aquitted

That's my mistake. The other references says "Il 25 febbraio 2010 la corte di cassazione ha dichiarato prescritto il reato di Mills ritenendo però "verificata la sussistenza degli estremi del reato di corruzione in atti giudiziari" e condannando Mills al pagamento del risarcimento di 250 000 euro per danno all'immagine dello Stato e 10 000 euro per le spese processuali." I thought that when referring to the proof of the existence of the crime, it referred to the first crime Mills was accused, the one which included Berlusconi.

Consider drop vote-keeping P1103?

2
Summary by Ogoorcs

Unfortunately I did not have the time to say sometthing in the aforementioned voting.

Liuxinyu970226 (talkcontribs)

This property has key concept leak, many concepts of platforms (not only time-or-history-related!) are mixed up by this property, so keeping it will only make hurts to WikiProject Trains (Q53051).

As a simple example: Changhua Station (Q5071979) has only one track between platform 1 and platform 2 (as again, Spanish solution (Q1342434)), so the de-facto value "5" is logical wrong. Then how can you define the real "number of platform-somethings"?

Ogoorcs (talkcontribs)

Hi, I'm sorry that I still don't have replied to you nor contributed significantly to the discussion, I'm experiencing technical issue in connecting to Wikimedia websites from Linux.

Summary by Ogoorcs

Apparently some members decided that dictionaries have no saying about the meaning of words.

Ymblanter (talkcontribs)

24 hours, since you apparently do not know how to stop.

Ogoorcs (talkcontribs)

Reason? Was I vandalizing something? Was I adding incorrect statements? Were they unreferenced? If yes, how could a block help them get a reference?

EDIT: Thank you for letting me now know the reason through the blocking message and not first here LOL.

Anyway, harrassment/intimidation? I feel like the one harrassed. First I got my referenced edits reverted without discussion, then a discussion on Admin board was opened; then I got no answers neither from the person who opened it nor from the people who reverted the edits; now I'm being blocked because I re-reverted an edit on which I got no reply on?

So, now that I'm blocked I could not even reply to threads related to the kind of edits I was doing and that are happening in request deletion page.

Ymblanter (talkcontribs)

Well, you perfectly know that "fraudster" is not an occupation, and there was no consensus in the community to add it as occupation. You still decided to go ahead and add it. Fine.

Ogoorcs (talkcontribs)

Fraudster is correctly classified as occupation (Q12737077) and actually it wasn't me doing that classification, but Andreasmperu, in October. As you can see, occupation (Q12737077), which is the subject of property occupation (P106), is a very broad concept, that contains "Professions" as a very special subset. Some people want to restrict occupation (P106) to professions only. Neverthless, that would invalidate many statement and imho would restrict usefulness of that property, too. I would advice creating a new property.

Last but not least, in my language "fraudster" is used for naming both a person who commits fraud and the "occupation" a person does when committing fraud. I think this is a serious concern not only for fraudsters but for many other occupations that right now overlap with different concepts and no one since now cared about this (for what I know).

What I saw in the last round of this discussion running is that newcomers would prefer to simplify things (because probably edit the database by hand) at expense of correctness. I think that assuming database immutability ("occupations are professions because most of the times we used as such!") is really a bad thing for the project.

Also, I didn't break consensus. I got people saying they didn't agree with the statement without giving any sort of motivation even after opening a discussion in admins' board. I think that do not replying to a discussion classifies instead as silent consensus. At least, I thought that undoing edits would at least convince them to join discussion, not giving someone a reason to block me.

Ymblanter (talkcontribs)

I am not even going to discuss this. When you get unblock, go to the project chat and gain consensus for this usage of fraudster (and not merely wait until nobody responds).

Ogoorcs (talkcontribs)

This is unfair and unreasonable. I deserve an explanation.

Ymblanter (talkcontribs)

Well, post an unblock request, may be another administrator would be interested in unblocking you.

Ogoorcs (talkcontribs)

As always, Wiki* is wiki only until you come to confront with some internal member. After that is everything but wiki and interely endless burocracy.

Summary by Ogoorcs

I came home safely.

Ruthven (talkcontribs)
Ogoorcs (talkcontribs)

Volentieri!

Ruthven (talkcontribs)

Ma poi, sei arrivato sano e salvo? :)

Ogoorcs (talkcontribs)

Yup, con un grande regionale a 3 euro dieci/venti minuti dopo.

Ruthven (talkcontribs)

Grande!

Uomovariabile (talkcontribs)

Ciao, riguardo la discussione di sabato ti segnalo questo progetto, se non lo conosci già.

MisterSynergy (talkcontribs)

Hey Ogoorcs, I just found consist of (Q55692548). What’s the purpose of this attempt? It does not work the way you tried to implement it, unfortunately, but maybe we can elaborate something which does work… Regards!

Reply to "Q55692548"