Civility warning Edit

This is inappropriate language to use in communication with another editor. This sort of rhetoric poisons discussion and makes it harder for others to give you a reasonable response. I am disappointed to see this from a user who holds advanced permissions. I request that you avoid using language like this in the future. Bovlb (talk) 01:32, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bovlb: Do not come here threatening me. Your response was heavy-handed and unnecessary, and you should be able to take reasonable criticism for your actions. You should actually listen to the opinion of a person who has been a steward, checkuser and ombuds commission, rather than react as you have here on my user talk page. [Remember that I am an uninvolved party, I am observing both sides.] To be a good administrator, you need to have the ability to listen and reflect; and to take criticism. I am not seeing it.

You had numerous alternatives to use beyond site blocking someone. You have the ability to partially block the user temporarily from pages. You had a greater ability to do things beyond the punitive approach of using a heavy block.

I do not see that my language is inappropriate, nor rhetorical, nor rude; yes, it is forthright, as I do expect better of your decision making and your actions.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:01, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't threaten you. I simply requested that you be more civil in future. That seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable request, but apparently you disagree.
I know who you are, which is why I am so disappointed in your recent behaviour. You don't need to wave your credentials around.
I am always happy to receive feedback and to listen to everyone. Notwithstanding your incivility, I have taken your views on board, given them due consideration, and have done my best to respond to them in that thread.
I can't help feeling that you are the one showing unwillingness to accept reasonable criticism here. Bovlb (talk) 08:56, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If, for some reason, you have difficulty in accepting this criticism from me, then I encourage you to approach any other respected editor and ask them whether your action here was appropriate. Bovlb (talk) 01:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Link removal Edit

  Please refrain from removing valid links from items. Your edits do not appear to be constructive, and have been reverted. If you would like to test out editing, please use the Wikidata Sandbox. Thank you. --Bovlb (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd like to apologise for using a template message here that was only partially relevant and did not explain the background for our process. I am working on an improved template message that is better-tailored to this situation.
I believe you have now received adequate explanations about our policy at Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions/Archive/2023/07/16#Discussion, Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions#Discussion, Topic:Xm5dwasd4vp9eqvx, User_talk:Ameisenigel#Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions/Archive/2023/07/16#Discussion, and Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard#Administrator_not_following_civil_or_due_process.
Please signal your understanding of process by self-reverting Special:Diff/1936901850. Bovlb (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Roll back after a wrong merge Edit

Hello Billinghurst, how are you?

As you've seen, there has been a wrong merge, here: wood engraver is a printmaking occupation, not a sculpture one. I had to revert it, I hope you agree with that.

In addition, I think you've asked a bot to change wood engraver by wood carver to all items that had this occupation. So now, all the artists who where wood engravers are entitled wood carvers, which is a wrong information.

Could you please ask the bot to roll back if it's possible? Information is currently wrong on many items.

Thank you very much, Daehan (talk) 13:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Daehan. I did see that unmerge. I don't control the bot, nor have any control, you would be best to ask the powers to be at WD. I do hope that you have also added a "different from" statement to stop them from being merged in the future.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Billinghurst,
Thank you for your prompt response.
Meanwhile, another contributor reverted the bot's edits and show me how to do it.
Could you please explain how can I add a "different from" statement and where? Daehan (talk) 13:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, ok, you mean different from (P1889), right? I thought it was some kind of tag to stop the bot doing this operation as an authomatic process. Daehan (talk) 13:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Daehan: an inhibitor to merging rather than the bot's cleanup following a merge.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]