I was doing research for a Wikipedia article that was requested about a musician called "Insyde" and I came across the Wikidata page, it claims it was deleted by you for being spam and non notable. I have done research and the artist is in fact notable in being referred to multiple reliable and secondary sources online and easily found.
Return to the user page of "Bencemac".
Reply to "This is a test for Phabricator"
Deleted page for invalid reason
You do not have deleted edits, so I do not know what item you are talking about. But based on my deletion reason and the three-times rejected draft on the English Wikipedia, I am pretty sure about that the item was not notable.
I did not contribute to the Wikidata page, I just found it deleted as part of my research to improve the article on Wikipedia.
The last rejection was several months ago, which is plenty of time for a subject to become notable, which I believe is the case in this circumstance. I would not be editing the wiki page unless I found enough sources for it.
I still do not know what item you are talking about, which means I am not able to review it. If you would like me to do that, please name the item unless none of us can help (something you deleted covers too many items).
Link to former page: Q55403417
I checked the page and I agree with the nominator.
I also agree as well, I only found one reliable source about the musician, as I misunderstood the IMDb accepted uses.
Regarding Deletion on RFD
Hey, in case you missed the ping and since bot archived the request. Please see https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions&oldid=989640145#Q61043828
I have also requested oversight regarding those revisions.
Thanks for notify me, I answered and closed the ticket.
unknown PhD student with a "funny" name
I used the name on social networks to respect his privacy. Is it necessary to recreate the page with its real name?
Why would he be notable?
I do not know, what is "notable"? He is a student PhD and book publisher so I think he is juste as noteworthy as many other peoples on Wikidata, is not it?
That is not how it works, see Wikidata:Notability.
I see Wikidata:Notability, what about this:
I suggest you to start restoration request on AN because I am going to be off again.
Stop putting home ground
stadium is better usage
And it already contained that information as well as the name of the club.
magyar nagykövet Belgiumban
Szia! Szerintem ennek nincs hivatalos weboldala: Q63247361 Weboldala magának a nagykövetségnek van, és annak elemén szerepel is: Q63247361 Így viszont hibaüzenetet ad, hogy két helyen szerepel a tulajdonság értéke. Visszavonnám, ha nem bánod.
Ezért kellett; Wikidata:Project chat#Errors caused by ambassadors.
Ha jól értem, az az általános probléma, hogy ezeket a x ország y országi nagykövete elemeket nem ismeri el beosztásnak/pozíciónak. Ez kb. egy hónapja jelentkező figyelmeztetés (kb. 3-4 hónapja foglalkozom a diplomatákkal, és korábban nem volt ez a hibajelzés). Egyelőre azzal próbálok védekezni, hogy az ilyen elemeknél az alosztálya ennek tulajdonsághoz beírom azt is, hogy Q4164871 (hogy a fenébe kell ide rendesen linkelni, hogy a linkszöveg is látszódjék?). Szóval beírom ezt a pozíciót, de ez azért hülyeség szerintem, mert mindegyiknél szerepel az is, hogy Q121998, ami már önmagában is Q4164871. Korábban nem volt ezekkel gond, és nem csak a magyar relációkat érinti. És természetesen azoknál a személyeknél, akik ezeket a stallumokat viselik a beosztás tulajdonságban, szintén megjelent a hibajelzés. Kösz, hogy felvetetted a problémát, remélem találnak megoldást és nem kell ezerszám beleírni az elemekbe a pozíció tulajdonságot (ha már egyszer maga a nagykövet is az).
Ja, és így néz ki, ha szerepel az elem alosztályában külön is a pozíció: Q63431749
Ha sablonként linkeled (forrásszöveg módban egyszerűbb), akkor látszik a címke is: Douglas Adams (Q42). Nem mi vagyunk az egyetlenek, akik nem értik, miért fut le hibával a kikötés. ambassador of Hungary to Belgium (Q63247361) azóta javítva lett, remélem sikerül egy univerzális megoldást találni a problémára (helyi megoldást nekem is menne, de inkább valami állandóra lenne szükség).
Admin privilege abuse
So, it is no surprise that you have no interest in reaching consensus and are so rude too. You are an admin and can abuse your privilege! Interesting.
Before reporting to your admin abuse to your superiors, I am obliged to ask you to return to the talk page and discuss things professionally. I know it is useless and you won't do it, but I am sure when I report you, they'll ask me if I have done that. So, think about it.
Bencemac, please refrain from editing the item while it is under dispute, and please revert your protection of the item. Please make no further edits to it until the talk page discussion comes to a close.
You really should have known better in this case. If you use your tools while involved again, and/or you do not see what is problematic about your actions here, I will open a removal discussion for you.
Bencemac, I do expect you to respond and acknowledge that your actions here were improper, and that you will refrain from protecting items (or any page) during a dispute in which you are involved.
I still writing my explanation.
My answer can be found there.
Where? I don't see any edits to this effect.
At the talk page TheSmartOne2019 can find my answer for my undoing. I know that it was not my best idea but I must clarify that I cannot even add a source because my edit was reverted (and you know that how much time and effort adding a well-formatted takes). And calling me a liar (because I did not call her/him a vandal) and saying that I will not report you if after one minute of reporting me makes me uncomfortable and unsafe. I did truly not reacted the best way.
Here, I specifically want you to address not the content in question but the fact that you used your ability to protect the item to gain what amounted to an editorial advantage in this dispute. See Wikidata:Administrators#Involved administrators. Notably, I have not chosen to change the item or do any actions of my own due to my now having a stance on the dispute.
Nobody said "I will not report you". I said the opposite. And anyways, I have not reported you yet. I went a noticeboard and asked whether it was the right place, without mentioning your name. Jasper Deng discovered it all on his own.
@TheSmartOne2019:, let me handle the issue of his actions. Stay calm and know that I am working to ensure he understands the problem with his action here.
@Jasper Deng I do not understand your comment correctly, could you please be more simple? Sorry @TheSmartOne2019, but I know it is useless and you won't do it and its context made me feel that. It could be that I am wrong.
Because you were involved in this dispute, you were required by policy to refrain from taking administrator actions, such as page protection, in any matter related to the dispute. Your protection of the item was thus in violation of the policy.
I need you to understand that, and I want to see a commitment to complying in the future. If you do not understand, then that brings into question whether you should be serving as an administrator.
I confess my mistake and I apologise for @TheSmartOne2019. Sorry about that, I will work on it. Please check the talk page and the current state of article if that is adequate or not. Thanks.
Controversial contributions to "Windows 10" (Q18168774) item
Hi. Please be sure to visit Talk:Q18168774. I've added two threads in it.
This is a test for Phabricator
This is a test SD discussion which shows you that Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard is blue Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard when I am writing this, but after saving, Wikidata: prefix will be dropped. Feel free to try it here.
thanks for respecting my wish
What do you propose? I was still in the process of arranging everything properly. Some wiki's discus the position, others choose to create a list of ministers. Those two aren't exactly the same and should be separated. Also, I kindly request that you use basic chivalry and use my talk page when merging an item, properly motivating an edit. I understand that administrators are busy but that isn't an excuse to skip basic communications.
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Hungary (Q50586116) has instance of (P31)=position (Q4164871). It is clearly not a 'list', you simply created a duplicate with the same statements. The current state of the item is satisfying.
Perhaps I didn't communicate clearly. Some Wikipedia article entries qualify as a Wikimedia list article while others don't. That's what I was trying to sort out before you cut my efforts short. Could you please direct me to a relevant policy page about mixing list articles with non list articles in Wikidata items? That way I can do some reading up.
Repeating the same argument over and over without addressing my point isn't very helpful. I'm not a Wikidata regular and therefor everything takes a little bit more time so you merged my work in progress. Now I'm asking either: "how I can solve what I was trying to solve in a more efficient way"or "is there a relevant policy that explains that Wikimedia lists and non list articles about a political position should be mixed in the same item". Could you please address my question instead of repeating yourself?
I explained what I followed when I merged the duplicate item. I do not know what more you want from me, so I close this discussion.
What do you mean "vandalism"?
Fortunella is an invalid taxon and kumquat's valid taxon name is Citrus japonica.
Look at the article in the English Wikipedia. Fortunella is an inaccurately applied, outdated scientific name.
Stop recycling items and deleting valid sitelinks, statements.
The valid sitelinks were moved to the valid item. Citrus japonica. Fortunella is a synonym. The "vandalim" label is ridiculous.
The majority of the cited sources indicate that the sole species of the monotypic taxon Fortunella, the Fortunella japonica, is the synonym of the Citrus japonica.
What you referred to as "vandalism" was a constructive contribution.
Read en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kumquat starting with "Kumquats (or cumquats in Australian English, /ˈkʌmkwɒt/; Citrus japonica)" and also explaining that "Recent phylogenetic analysis suggests they do indeed fall within Citrus."