Please respect proper noun of company. As i observed that you invented new hoax English transliterated name for Banca Carige (Q3633695) and Credit Agricole Group (Q590952). Matthew hk (talk) 06:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Don't leave messages on people's talk pages accusing them of inventing hoax names. Especially if it's an honest mistake like it was in this case. Otherwise, you'll just unnecessarily piss people off and be ignored. As you will be in this case. Which ultimately just leads to more errors. Generally people like you who don't approach things in good faith and with manors are a waste of time. So ignoring you is the only appropriate response. I won't make the mistake again, or maybe I will. I don't really care either way. People make mistakes. It's a lot quicker and easier to just fix mistakes when you seem them and move on. Instead of laving the person conspiratorial messages on their talk page. I do it all the time. I'm sure you can to. So, learn your lesson, just fix things next time, and get off my lawn. No big deal. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I had told you "Banca Carige" is a proper noun also in English. This is the article title in English wikipedia . Please DO NOT change back to your wrong label "Carige Bank". The bank also called itself [1] "Banca Carige". Matthew hk (talk) 00:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
@Matthew hk: Where is your evidence that it is a proper noun in English or that it matters in Wikidata? The label field is language English, not language "Whatever the company calls it's self." Banca is not an English word. I don't care about the "native" language that the companies title is and neither does Wikidata. Walmart is translated in Chinese etc etc etc, because it's not "Go with the default language for all language fields." Would it be OK to change all the Chinese labels (or any other language) to English for Walmart or any other company because that's the "default" language of the companies title? If no, why is it OK here? If yes, then what is the point in the label language option in the first place? --Adamant1 (talk) 01:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
The proposed guideline Help:Label already stated the label should reflect common usage. Reuters called the bank "Banca Carige", so did The Economist Matthew hk (talk) 05:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
It's a proposal. Ultimately it doesn't matter what it says because its not a community accepted standard. The common usage example is talking about plants with a common name and scientific (or whatever) name anyway. Not English versus Spanish. Obviously the common name is favored in that case over latin, because no one uses or cares about latin. Think of it this way, Potato is English and most people, magazines, etc, etc, call them that, but in Spanish its patata. So, should the Spanish label potato instead of patata just because its the "more common" word? Of course not. We aren't deciding what to put in labels through a popularity contest. Who decides that Routers and the Economist are authoritative here? What if mine or someone elsws magazines have it translated a different way? Then it desolve to bickering over who's magazines have the better say. Christ, use common sense. It doesn't matter anyway except that by only going with one language for all the language fields your making it harder for people to find the company. There's no advantage to doing it. Except a fake sense of superiority that your language "won." No one is stopping you from having the label in "your" language. So why get in the way of other people's right to have it in theirs? Btw, I'm heavily involved in another project around brands that uses Wikidata for its back end and it totally makes a difference there what is in the language fields. It's also important for other projects that use Wikidata. So it matters beyond your language hoax paranoia. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Community Insights SurveyEdit

RMaung (WMF) 16:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights SurveyEdit

RMaung (WMF) 19:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Block reasonEdit

Hello @Mahir256:. I'd like to know what is intimidation about asking another user, who was replying with the same comment to every message to stop doing so? It was pretty clear he was frustrated because he didnt want the entries deleted. So he was posting the same message over and over to derail the AfD. Either that at least it was because he thought I was stupid and didnt understand what he was saying. People will spam AfD discussions to derail them all the time though and I see nothing intimadating about asking them not to. He also repeatedly said things that were clearly false, like that notability only takes one external identifer. When that's not what the guidelines say. If anything his behavior was intimadating. I dont know what else you would call not allowing other people to comment without going off repeatedly. Although on reflection maybe my tone could have been better, it was a frustrating situation because it was my AfD and he kept trying to derail it. I had planned to apologize though at leasr for the tone but you blocked me before I could. And I dont think the tone on its own warranted the block. Blocking me just asking someone not to post the same message over and over seems a little heavy handed. Especially in combination with the false accusation of intimadition attached to it and considering he was actually the one that was intimaditing me, and others, into not investigating the entries. So how is me being blocked justified, what was harrasement about it, and how is that not exactly what he was doing? Adamant1 (talk) 00:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Adamant1: The user to whom you were responding (as well as the item creator whom you named in the original request) asked me off-wiki to take a look at it; at the time, those items were generally not developed beyond the state you found them in, so I was hesitant--and still am, albeit just a bit less so due to improvements to those items in the interim--to intervene at all beyond providing what I thought was an appropriate--though apparently incorrect--clarification of what items were being targeted.
It is fine to defend the inclusion of something by responding generally thoughtfully to reasons in favor of excluding it (indeed, this appears to be the norm on long enwiki RfDs)--even and especially if a counter made in good faith is not responded to by such reasoning--and it is fine to conjecture whether performing one action (as deleting the items you nominated) necessitates another very closely linked action (as deleting the primary external identifier which those items and none other shared), in both cases as the user to whom you were responding has done. The messages from the user to whom you were responding, at least as I had read them, did not appear repetitive at all, were delivered with no contempt for you or anyone else, and in fact over time illuminated more about the features and uses of those items, all of which would have been valuable to other third-party viewers of the deletion request. I thus have to strongly disagree with the assertion that the user to whom you were responding was merely repeating the same message over and over, harassing you, or behaving in any intimidating fashion.
On the other hand, as the nominator, the shifted focus from those items with identifiers (at the start of the request) to those without (near the bottom of it--by the way, note how Peter James's response to the items you highlighted at that point differs from your own), along with your lack of supporting evidence for whatever position you were taking (that bank branches (in India) are not notable, perhaps) and the strongly worded assertions and follow-ups which such supporting evidence could accompany (the exchange in response to VIGNERON, for example--by the way, the general questions you raise in that exchange are oft-asked and oft-answered in other fora, so an answer may be found if you have the strength to search for them), may well lead others to view you as the bad faith actor here.
With this in mind, the repeated accusation that the user to whom you were responding was 'twisting your language', along with the tone of your last comment (which suggested that said comment could easily have been abbreviated to 'shut up') and later, generally fearful, comments to me off-wiki about your messaging by those I noted at the start of this response suggested to me intimidating behavior, which has led to the block from which you have arisen (and please do not try to tell me that they were not scared). It is good that you rethought the tone of your messages, or that you were considering apologizing for it, but these should have been done either nearly immediately--a timely, appropriate judgment--or after some time of reflection (during which time a block on your account should have little overall effect). Indeed, many others who have been blocked with the stated purpose of avoiding attacks on other users (and you will find numerous records of their transactions in the archives of the Administrators' noticeboard, should you wish to search them) note having gone through the exact same reconsideration process, but these do not change the original block rationale or necessitate any form of redress in light of these stated new circumstances.
If you have any other misgivings about the block (without reference to the user to whom you were responding), I can respond to them here. If you have any misgivings specifically about the behavior of the person to whom you were responding, please just inform him directly. (As someone who has worked closely with him in numerous cross-wiki areas over the last few years, I feel among the best-equipped to tell you that he won't bite.) Mahir256 (talk) 02:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
I never contacted Atudu about anything. Let alone did I respond to her about anything either. So, your assertion that she was scared or intimidated by how I responded to her is simply false. Also, I never contacted Bodhisattwa outside of the AfD and nothing I said there to him was a threat either. In the case of Atudu, it would have been impossible for me to harass, threaten, intimidate, or do anything else toward her like your claiming. Since I've never contacted her. In my original message I asked for examples of what you blocked me for. All you have done is make vague accusations and say I did things "because people's feelings." That is not enough to justify blocking me for a week IMO. So, what exactly did I say or do toward Atudu (who again I never had contact with) that was threatening? The same goes for Bodhisattwa. This whole thing is totally harassment and intimidation toward me.
Bodhisattwa's comments were repetitive. The reason for his oppose vote was that the entries had external identifiers. Which he repeated 4 times. His last comment started with "I have explained earlier." So, how is that not repetitive? He even said it was. It wasn't going to be helpful to anyone, because they would have gotten it the other 4 times he said it. I wasn't telling him to shut up either. I never told him not to participate in the conversation anymore and I could have cared less if he made other comments. So, I don't know what the hell your talking about. Generally, it's better to minimize repetitive posts in an AfDs because it makes them harder to read. People do it all the time with AfDs in Wikipedia and maybe that was his intent. That's the only reason I said anything about him repeating himself.
I wasn't shifting focus from items with identifiers. My deletion request was all the bank branch entries created by Atudu and all of them included ones without identifiers. I included them in my last message because you had already provided a search for ones with identifiers. So there was zero reason to post them again. It seems like your just finding things to nitpick and point fingers at me about.
Bodhisattwa twisted my language several times. He said I thought Indian Financial System Codes were "worthless and should be gotten rid of." By doing so, he intentionally miss-representing my motives for doing the AfD. Which was clearly a personal attack and an attempt to derail things. I'm not sure how you can say otherwise. That said, he was the one that originally said I was twisting his language. So, it's cool that he said it first and attacked me by lying about what I said (along with questioning my motives), but then when I respond by repeating exactly what he said that's harassment and making threats? OK.
I provided supporting evidence in the AfD that the entries aren't notable. I said the notability guidelines state "The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references" and that none of the entries had serious references. Which was the whole point in the AfD. I'm not sure how I could have been clearer about it. Anyone could look through the entries and see they didn't have serious references. You, Atudu, Bodhisattwa, or anyone else are free to disagree that the notability guidelines and serious references don't matter, but it's pretty low to say I didn't have site a reason for the AfD when I did or to accuse me of having ulterior motives. It seems the insinuation is that I have something against people from India and it was why I did an AfD about Indian companies. Which isn't surprising. The whole "your only doing this because you have a problem with the subject" is a pretty obvious deflection/derailment tactic that happens all the time in Wikipedia. So, I totally expected it.
Lastly, you blocked me three hours after I made the comment. Realistically, I didn't have time to apologize within that time frame. Let alone "after some time of reflection." We're all volunteers here and I have a life outside of Wikidata. I had other important things in real life going on at the time. I didn't even notice I was blocked until 2 days ago. There was zero reason to think I'd be blocked over a bad tone in an AfD anyway. Especially considering Bodhisattwa's part in it, that your ignoring. With how you described things, I was probably blocked because Bodhisattwa and Atudu lied t you about me in private messages, said I just doing the AfD because of bad motives (like racism or something), and you went along with it because of your history with Bodhisattwa. I can understand it, but doesn't make blocking me the correct way to handle it. It's obvious they acted in a clearly threatening and harassing manor toward me. So I'd get blocked and the AfD would be derailed. Both of which happened. If your not willing to right this, I'll probably escalate it to the admin board or something. In the meantime, it would be helpful if you where clear about what exactly Atudu and Bodhisattwa claimed I said to them or what exactly they are accusing me of doing that was threatening etc. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
@Mahir256: BTW, the fact that your even involved in this because you know both of them in real life and she asked you to "look into it", which led me being blocked, is clearly wrong and low key vote manipulation on her part. Especially since she never participated in the AfD herself. Your not suppose to make an AfD go your way by getting your friends involved in it. Let alone lie about the person who opened it so there's an excuse to block them. You should really know better as an admin. Also, it just confirms my original supposition that Bodhisattwa didn't care what the facts where and was just trying to derail the AfD. It was clearly a concerted effort on their parts to make both it and me just go away. Which totally explains why he acted the way he did. Otherwise, I'd love to see some evidence to the contrary. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)