User talk:Billinghurst/Archives/2023

This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion.

haswbstatement:P31=Q416783

https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?search=Test+haswbstatement%3AP31%3DQ4167836&title=Special:Search  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Help on a term for "fake adress"

Hello, how are you ? Maybe you could help me with a piece of technical old library term :

I am in the process of cataloguing old editions (16th century), some with fake adress, in order to evade censorship, as it was very usual in those times.

Do you know how they are called in English ? I'm trying to build a specific item to be able to query them, instead of just "deprecated adresses" -> see Q117327525 to understand what I mean. Hsarrazin (talk) 15:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@Hsarrazin: Are you meaning "fictitious"? As in it was made-up by the author. For me a fake address would be where someone lies about their address.  — billinghurst sDrewth

(sorry for delay, was on vacation) : yes, probably that :) - the problem with technical (professional) terms, is that it is very difficult to guess what is the term in another language ;

I mean, the adress used on some old books, generally to evade censorship : completely fantasy (à Paphos, chez Vénus), or deplaced (London, in reality Parisian publisher), or just plain invented name (Pierre Marteau). --Hsarrazin (talk) 12:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@Hsarrazin: "alleged" would be something declared, though not necessarily factual, though often it is applied by an outside party to another's action/information. If we are wanting to be generic with just wishing to state that it is what the publishers said, not so much reality, then alleged is the word I would choose, and then use fictitious as a synonym.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:04, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Civility warning

• "I expect a more mature response", "extreme reaction by an admin" Special:Diff/1910603574

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)

@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)

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)

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)

Link removal

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)

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)