Arequest for comment is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.
Technical news
The Nuke feature also nowprovides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.
Today, between many who just died,Tobias Kratzer on his 45th birthday who was good foran unusual DYK mentioning a Verdi opera in 2018, - you can see his work in the trailer of another one that I saw, and my talk page has a third (but by a different director). 2025 pics, finally. --Gerda Arendt (talk)18:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see now from the filter log that you are referring to the Cahit Irgat image.File:Cahit Irgat.jpg was deleted from Commons because it is a rather blatant copyright violation. We care about that sort of thing here. Your wanting to violate copyright doesn't mean we allow such violations to sustain here. Find a provably public domain or free license image instead. That an image exists on the Internet somewhere doesn't mean it's public domain, and uploading it here or at Commons doesn't mean it's your work. --Hammersoft (talk)17:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for not seeing your original message[1]. I was active at the time, but didn't see it. I thought that TP was in my watchlist, but evidently it wasn't (not sure if it was taken out on the move or what). Regardless, I didn't see your ping until this morning. Just wanted to apologize for and explain what might have appeared to be ignoring you (which was not my intention). I have responded to the content items at the article TP.ButlerBlog (talk)14:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators can nownuke pages created by a user or IP address from the last 90 days, up from the initial 30 days.T380846
A 'Recreated' tag will now be added to pages that were created with the same title as a page which was previously deleted and it can be used as a filter inSpecial:RecentChanges andSpecial:NewPages.T56145
Arequest for comment is open to discuss whether AI-generated images (meaning those wholly created by generative AI, not human-created images modified with AI tools) should be banned from use in articles.
A new filter has been added to theSpecial:Nuke tool, which allows administrators to filter for pages in a range of page sizes (in bytes). This allows, for example, deleting pages only of a certain size or below.T378488
Non-administrators can now check which pages are able to be deleted using theSpecial:Nuke tool.T376378
Can you decrease the protection level of the article? I know there is disruptive editing but this article contains important free information that me and other readers use to check the newest polling results and averages. If this is not removed soon enough it would be too difficult to add all the data and update.CS012831 (talk)16:24, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CS012831: I'm not inclined to do so, barring presentation of a more convincing argument. I don't mean to disparage what you say at all. I'm simply very cognizant for the mass outbreak ofedit warring that has occurred on the article which caused the protection in the first place. I was hoping discussion would ensue to hammer things out among the disputants, and at first was dismayed there apparently was just more sand tossing and finger pointing going on in the sandbox (seeresponse to the protection). But, two days into the protectiondiscussion began to help iron this out. I'm happy to see this process begin, but there is as yetno consensus in that discussion. Had consensus already emerged in that discussion (unlikely, given that it's just been 2 days), I would have considered dropping the protection as there would be an agreement with which to move forward. I also don't feel anything is beyond our pool of editors. While it might be more difficult to back-add in data, it will be far from impossible. Much of the notations have already been made at the suggested edit requests. We have 2.5 days of protection left. It's not that long. When the time approaches, I will be placing an additional warning on the talk page of the article to the effect that any resumption of edit warring activities will result in swift blocks of the accounts conducting the edit warring, regardless of who is 'right' or 'wrong' (which is highly subjective in this case). --Hammersoft (talk)17:15, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First, you've not given any reason to unblock you, just that you want to be unblocked. Second, you are using an IP address to evade your block...again. Third, perWP:THREESTRIKES, you are now considered banned by the community. No one administrator has the power to unblock you. Even if they did, they can't. This is because you areglobally locked. To clear the global lock, you need to appeal to stewards@wikimedia.org. However, such an appeal must actually have a clear reason along with an understanding of what you did wrong and what you intend on doing in the future. So far, you've not provided any reason to be unblocked. --Hammersoft (talk)14:28, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Everything that (I think) should be done has been done. We don't do a blanket suppression of a user. If there's something I missed that you think should be taken care of, let me know. --Hammersoft (talk)14:19, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC was closed with consensus to allow editors to opt-out of seeing "sticky decorative elements". Such elements should now be wrapped in{{sticky decoration wrapper}}. Editors who wish to opt out can follow the instructions atWP:STICKYDECO.
An RfC has resulted ina broad prohibition on the use of AI-generated images in articles. A few common-sense exceptions are recognized.
I just saw this close by you for a topic ban against[2]. Although thereis a problem with Wlaak's contributions, I am not convinced that the discussion there was sufficient to justify this action, and wonder whether you could reconsider or re-open. What concerns me are a couple of things. Firstly Wlaak is a pretty new and inexperienced editor. They have been here 10 months now, and with 1000 edits, but that is still not a lot of experience, and a bit of understanding of that would be appreciated. But more concerning, and the reason I wanted to raise this with you, is that most of the supports for a topic ban in that discussion came from people with an opposing POV (and also, generally, with limited experience and none outside of the topic area). If you look at the three supports where this does not apply, two of them stated they would only support the topic ban if it were reciprocal on one of those others.
The discussion went stale, and had been stale for days. In fact, it was going to be archived without action. Re-opening it for further discussion wouldn't make sense in that context as nobody was commenting anymore anyway. Further, Wlaak was still generating problems during the discussion. There's a point at which failure to get the point needs to be addressed. A topic ban is pretty close to the weakest resolution to an issue that can be applied. I am sympathetic to there being some contrary views (such as Robert McClenon), but in the end there was at best limited opposition. As a result, I'm disinclined to re-open it myself. You are welcome to do so either atWP:AN/I in another subsection of that thread or atWP:AARV. Either way, I'm not going to be upset if you do. I just feel there's limited (at best) grounds to do so. --Hammersoft (talk)12:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I don't fancy the ANI bear pit, which can be quite adversarial, but if I go to AARV, we could, at least, get some additional views. I'll open a thread there.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)13:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that you might receive opposition to starting a thread about this atWP:AARV. If so, you can let people know that I said it was ok to do so. Not that you need my permission :) --Hammersoft (talk)13:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. I linked this discussion, but will let them know if they ask. I'll drop the official notification now (sorry! but it's required!).Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)13:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well that cinches it. Dropping required notices on my talk page? How dare you! :) More seriously; I'll not respond on the AARV thread for now, as I don't want to bias the discussion. I'll observe, and if I think there are points where I could clarify things, I'll comment. --Hammersoft (talk)13:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wanted to leave this on your talk page so as not to flood CE's. I mentioned in a posting there that the editor who just received a topic ban (Wlaak) had an article which was the focus of a recent content dispute. This content dispute is now at Village pump awaiting GS to be placed, and I wanted to contribute in a way that could help solve the content dispute while being neutral and non-POV.
After a messyAfD, the article was converted back to draftspace and the closer (Asilvering) said "Editors are free to continue to edit this draft as they wish, to merge sections of it to mainspace articles, and so on." I assumed this applied to practically anyone, but I'm not sure whether they meant specifically editors who were involved in making the draft. One of the things I listed in my message on CE's talk page was to condense the references and merge some of the draft's content to the currentArameans article. In your opinion, would this help or interrupt dispute resolution? I just don't want to continue down this path if others are going to say it's inherently POV-driven, which is not my intention.
I don't have an opinion one way or another as to how to proceed with dispute resolution on that subject. However, at least two people at the tban discussion recommended topic banning you from the area as well. I could not include you for the topic ban, as that was not the subject at hand in the discussion. Nevertheless, I think it would be a very, very good idea for you to voluntarily step away from the general areas of Assyrian/Chaldean/Aramean/Syriac subjects for the time being. --Hammersoft (talk)19:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I'd like to step out of the general topic area for the time being and get experience elsewhere to take a break from everything. Thanks for the reply, I'll take your advice and work elsewhere for now.Surayeproject3 (talk)19:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I truly appreciate your patience and kindness regarding this tban. My first thought upon seeing them Streisand themselves at XRV was something like "oh no, I can't watch!" I'm grateful for your actions, and that you live up to your name. --asilvering (talk)20:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering: Thanks for the barnstar :) I really do appreciate it!!! Unfortunately though, my patience is now shot[3]. Eight violations in the first 24 hours of the application of the tban. Oooof. --Hammersoft (talk)01:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I consider it a blessing that none of them were in mainspace. I hope he heeds the warning. My own experience, when I gave a really clear "if you do this, I will block, with no further warnings" was that he did (as did Surayeproject3), which gave me some real hope. (Another one walked straight into my hammer, twice. I've come to understand that is the more typical approach in the topic area. Not a great place to learn how to edit.) --asilvering (talk)05:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AnArticles for Creation backlog drive is happening in June 2025, with over 1,600 drafts awaiting review from the past two months. In addition to AfC participants, all administrators and new page patrollers can help review using the Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in theGadgets settings.Sign up here to participate!
hi, i'm so sorry😪. i'm still wrong. but i have a request, please delete the article-discussion on wp:an, i understood it a long time ago, and then i saw your request to block me. i'm a newbie, i registered literally today, although i've been using it for a long time. anyway, i apologize again, please delete that discussion on wp:anROGER DEACON (talk)18:07, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Hammersoft. I've just seen your user page. It is very interesting, and I agree with pretty well everything you say. However, I think the example you give of vandalism lasting a long time probably isn't a good one. The expression "glamour club" does exist in relation to football clubs, as you can see in these examples:[5][6][7][8], and I don't see any reason to suppose the word was not used in good faith. I have very occasionally seen cases of vandalism remaining in place for years, and it would be good to replace your example with a more unambiguously correct one, but unfortunately I can't suggest one.JBW (talk)09:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For taking care of that unblock request. I really should have been able to recognize AI-generated text when, in retrospect, it was obvious. Still, though, thank you.JeffSpaceman (talk)00:12, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kazama16: I've deleted it underWP:CSD#F1. Just so you know; rather than upload a second copy, you can move the file yourself. There's a "move" button above the file that allows you to do this. --Hammersoft (talk)13:38, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reminds me of Steven Spielberg trying to get John Williams to do the music forSchindler's List; John, on understanding the breadth of the undertaking, "Steven, I don't think I can do this." Steven: "I know. The ones who can are dead." --Hammersoft (talk)23:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
good answer, thank you! - right now four names on my user page, and the one inthe story the saddest - I would have liked the Duke for a sample to listen to but then found "Comfort ye" (of all texts), with the conductor who had fascinated me in concert here --Gerda Arendt (talk)06:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reverting myWP:NPA change. I remember trying to get toWP:NPA#WHATIS and seeing that it didn't redirect to the specific section. So I went to the page's shortcut box, clicked, and saw it was indeed only redirecting toWikipedia:No personal attacks. What I didn't notice at the time was that this wasnot a redirect forWP:NPA#WHATIS, it was just plainWP:NPA (apparently the # gets you to the corresponding anchor and there is no dedicated redirect for WP:NPA#WHATIS). Of course it works for me now, so perhaps there was a typo before or it wasn't all caps when I assumed there was an error. Thanks again. —Bagumba (talk)01:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What?? An administrator who can make three mistakes in 24 hours??? Where's the button to open an ArbCom case?JBW (talk)23:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious because I'm new to wikipedia, and eager to learn. I made an edit on two completely unrelated articles—articles that haven't been edited for years—, but you managed to find both of my edits instantly and correct both of them? How?Aquafina19.9 (talk)02:49, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Around 109,638 users have edited wikipedia in the last month. Are you suggesting that every of those 100,000 edits made have been reviewed personally by a contributor such as yourself?Aquafina19.9 (talk)16:39, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly possible. There's plenty of robust vandalism checking tools, and even bots that go around checking for vandalism. --Hammersoft (talk)17:07, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator elections will take place this month. Administrator elections are an alternative toRFA that is a gentler process for candidates due to secret voting and multiple people running together. The call for candidates is July 9–15, the discussion phase is July 18–22, and the voting phase is July 23–29. Get ready to submit your candidacy, or (with their consent) to nominate a talented candidate!
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm not going to keep arguing this. You placed a citation in a header as I noted above and in the edit summary. I'm sorry if this isn't clear to you. And once again we're going around in circles. If you have nothing new to add, this discussion is closed. --Hammersoft (talk)02:38, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Followinga request for comment, there isa new policy outlining the granting of permissions to view the IP addresses oftemporary accounts. Temporary account deployment on the English Wikipedia is currently scheduled for September 2025, and editors canrequest access to the permission ahead of time. Admins are encouraged to keep an eye on the request page; there will likely be a flood of editors requesting the permission when they realize they can no longer see IP addresses.
South Asia (WP:CT/SA) is designated acontentious topic. The topic area is specifically defined asAll pages related to the region ofSouth Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups.
Wikimania 2025 is happening inNairobi,Kenya, and online from August 6 to August 9. This year marks 20 years ofWikimania. Interested users can join the online event. Registration for the virtual event is free and will remain open throughout Wikimania. You canregister here now.
Damn! That's seriously impressive! I wish I had one of those! More seriously; do be careful. This project has a seriously bad habit of going after people who have been here a long time. The more you edit, the more there's dirt for people to pull out of 15, 20, 25 year old archives to throw together as a 'pattern' of abuse. --Hammersoft (talk)13:03, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Today's story - short version: ten years ago we had a DYK about a soprano who sang in concerts with me in the choir, - longer: I foundtoday a youtube ofan aria she sang with us then, recorded the same year, - if you still have time: our performances were the weekend before the Iraq war ultimatum, and we sangDona nobis pacem (and the drummer drummed!) as if they could hear us in Washington. --Gerda Arendt (talk)15:41, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to bring your attention tothis user (linking external) who trippedthis filter earlier. I found it odd that the editor would have happened to stumble across the blocked editor's userpage by coincidence. And given their current talk page, fake-block template, it looked suspicious.Nubzor[T][C]20:17, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I revertedthis change by a non-EC user, as well as a previous change they made at the same page a couple of days ago. They've also movedat least one page back to mainspace after you had moved it to draft space. You previously blocked them for making edits to articles under ECR, so I felt this might be of interest to you. Take care --tony14:38, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC is open on whether use ofemojis with no encyclopedic value in mainspace and draftspace (e.g., at the start of paragraphs or in place of bullet points) should be added as a criterion underG15.
An RfC is in progress to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
I would go the AfD route. I'm troubled by the origin of this article too. While not a confirmed sockpuppet, it's clear it's at least a meatpuppet if not a sock off another IP net. --Hammersoft (talk)16:23, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's absolutely ridiculous that you have the power to unilaterally lock a contentious page despite numerous objections and valid criticisms, and then at the same time casually admit you don't really care to monitor the page. You should not have this power.2601:840:8100:3E60:EDBE:F03D:E3A4:7814 (talk)13:52, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The power to unilaterally protect a page is part of the toolsetadministrators have on the project. If you feel administrators shouldn't have the power to unilaterally protect pages, then I recommend you make a proposal atWikipedia:Village pump (proposals), and mention the proposal in appropriate places such asWT:RFA andWT:ADMIN. While some people objected to the protection, others endorsed it including other administrators. A request to unprotect the page was denied[12], but you are welcome to make another request for unprotection or reduction in protection atWP:RFUP. Lastly, Inever said I wasn't going to monitor the page...in fact I said exactly the opposite[13][14][15]. You are welcome to make accusations against me, but if you do so please make sure your facts are correct. --Hammersoft (talk)14:23, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hammersoft, when you get a chancethis edit request needs attention. It was originally to add attribution, but four editors (Voorts, Simonn233, Rjjjiii, and myself) in the discussion agreed that inclusion is not warranted and it is better off removed.
PerWP:BLP this needs to be removed immediately on poor sourcing grounds (Contentious material about living (or, in some cases, recently deceased) persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion), pending a consensus to include it.Symphony Regalia (talk)00:35, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Others are replying to my message to you, but I will not be engaging further. You've presented us with an option, so I will be awaiting your reply only on how to proceed (or waiting for the movement of the page into a sandbox area). Please let me know how to continue; I am gathering more publication instances for citations.ADWNSW (talk)23:12, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied to you on the other thread. BTY when I was a higher editor, I had a separate account from mid 2002 to about 2006 before I waled away, so I've actually been around quite a bit longer than what you saw. No matter, past life, not even on my CV.ADWNSW (talk)23:50, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your mention of the antique fan museum and got sucked into a rabbithole of ancient fans. Thanks for the fun exploration of a very niche museum!Meadowlark (talk)02:40, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Haha! You're quite welcome! I was surprised such a thing existed. I was looking for obscure museums, and that one came up. Glad you enjoyed! --Hammersoft (talk)12:21, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am writing to request a review and update of the Wikipedia page on Ahmer Bilal Soofi, Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan and former Federal Minister for Law & Justice. The current entry omits several important aspects of his work and also contains outdated information.
Notable contributions missing include:
Founding and leading the Research Society of International Law (RSIL);
His role in representing Pakistan and advising on cases before international forums, including the ICJ;
Appointment as amicus curiae in the Supreme Court of Pakistan (e.g., the Memogate case);
His recent publications, such as Quranic Covenants: An Introduction (2024).
There are also areas where older or inaccurate details require correction to ensure reliability. I would be happy to provide sources and references to support these updates.
This grows tiresome. Thesockpuppetry,edit warring, and over-the-top, gushingly positive commentary about how amazingly incredible this person is corrupts the very purpose of Wikipedia. If, after the protection expires in a month, this action resumes, the protection will become even longer, possibly indefinite. You're just not getting it. Wikipedia isn't your advertising platform for promotion. It never was and never will be. It is not a place to put your curriculum vitae or resume. Your best bet is to makesingle recommendations to change/add asingle line/short paragraph providing very strongreliable,secondary sources toTalk:Ahmer Bilal Soofi. Any more edit warring you attempt on the article will be undone. Trying to suggest adding huge amounts of text via the talk page will not be well received either. --Hammersoft (talk)10:59, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
However, before any of this can be considered, I strongly recommend you go back to your originalUser:Shahid265 account and withdraw the legal threat you made[16]. Then, there is a small chance a block appeal might work. It's a small chance, but the only chance you have of being a productive editor here. No person who has levied a legal threat on this project is allowed to continue editing while the legal threat remains. SeeWP:NLT. --Hammersoft (talk)12:35, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Roberts (educator) is an amazing subject and will certainly be getting more press. Newspapers.com is our friend. Having eyes everywhere is something one person can't do, but thousands of networked AGF types can get the job done. Thanks again.BusterD (talk)16:16, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the pageviews saw a heavy spike, and there was a small eruption of BLP violating edits. I'd edited the article to revert some of that mess, so it would have been inappropriate for me to protect it. --Hammersoft (talk)16:18, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been able to identify exactly where it comes from. It's obviously not the work of the uploader though. But, without proof I can't have it deleted. --Hammersoft (talk)13:17, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aftera motion, arbitration enforcement page protections no longer need to be logged in the AELOG. A bot now automatically posts protections atWP:AELOG/P. To facilitate this bot, protection summaries must include a link to the relevant CT page (e.g.[[WP:CT/BLP]]), and you will receive talk page reminders if you forget to specify the contentious topic but otherwise indicate it is an AE action.
Hello, Hammersoft. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You canremove this notice at any time by removing the{{You've got mail}} or{{ygm}} template.
Hi Hammersoft. I hope you've been doing OK. I'm wondering if you'd mind taking a look atFile:Elsa Sucre mayo de 1971.jpeg. I think the uploader is trying to revise an article about this subject of this photo (Elsa Cladera de Bravo actually already exists) on their user page, and they might be a relative/friend/contemporary of the subject based upon the description given for the photo. This is also bit interesting because the uploader's user name is the same asNadezhda Bravo Cladera, and the appear to be the same person. Anyway, if this photo was taken in 1971 in Bolivia, then it might now be PD perc:COM:Bolivia if truly an anonymous work. I guess it could also be a case ofc:Template:PD-heirs. I don't, however, see how this can be licensed as{{cc-by-sa-4.0}} given that the uploader isn't claiming to have taken the photo themselves, and that it's impossible to have been taken by the subject of the photo. --Marchjuly (talk)07:55, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking a look. I'll post something about this on the uploader's user talk page to see whether they can provide more information about the photo. Maybe they can help clarify the photo's provenance. If not, then I probably nominate it for discussion at FFD. --Marchjuly (talk)01:29, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I left a comment about this photo and also a comment about their user page on their user talk page. For some reason,their user sandbox is redirecting toElsa Cladera de Bravo (most likely just leftover from their original creation of the article back in 2014), which probably explains why they're using their user page instead of their sandbox to work on improvements to the article. The page's history shows the sandbox was moved to the draft namespace by someone else for AfC reasons, but that person left the redirect in place (which seems kind of odd to me). It's seem kind of pointless for a user not to be able use their user sandbox. Would it be OK to simply remove the redirect syntax from the page? --Marchjuly (talk)01:55, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. The line wasn't clear to me, but is now. Do you have any opinion on whether the closing was accurate/well-written? It was a good learning experience in any case.Hiobazard (talk/contribs)16:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm clearly paying way too much attention to this, but did my error do something to prevent the timely closure of that issue? And, is there something I should do to help move things along?...it's already in RfC.Hiobazard (talk/contribs)13:26, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, nothing you did caused the delay in closing. Wikipedia is imperfect, and always will be. Sometimes things get addressed quickly, sometimes slowly, sometimes not at all. It's possible this will be archived without action. If that happens, it may not be a problem. If the two editors start going at it again, it'll surely crop up on WP:AN/I again, and action will probably be swift due to the prior discussion. --Hammersoft (talk)13:59, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fortuna imperatrix mundi: You are correct in your assessment of them. They're just not getting it. As for getting my support, I don't hold grudges or desire to reserve space in my cranial cavity for remembering past grievances, though it happens. I honestly do not remember what is is you're suggesting was a negative interaction between us. Perhaps you can enlighten me so I can hate you again? LOL! :) --Hammersoft (talk)15:37, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! I'd have to go back through all the dumb things I've said. Sorry, I haven't got that sort of time :) You're right, though, that other convo is getting a bit repetitive.—Fortuna,imperatrix15:51, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fortuna imperatrix mundi: Just...wow. That's got to be the biggest case ofWP:IDHT I've ever seen on this project. Oh, and I figured out a new reason to hate you; you can't be bothered to look through all the dumb things you've said to find out why I hated you in the first place. Harumph! Now I have to go back through every dumb thing I've said to find it! Hahahaha! :) --Hammersoft (talk)18:13, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, as far as i know you are the administrator, right?
What i'm about to say might sound odd, but I have a strong suspicion of a community scaleWP:POVPUSH taking place for more than a decade now. Cetrain group of editors have found a loophole in common rules on infoboxes, specifically the birth places graph and got away with it.
They manage to go around the common format by abusing the consensus system, constantly revisiting the topic in order to deem any edits on this subject disruptive and withlod them, thus keeping theStatus Quo version they favor for 12 years, without questioning its correctness. Also I think they are "adjusting" the existing pages in certain way, so the information they are trying to avoid can't get through, as well as other schemes.
Anyways, this thing disrupts the design of infoboxes and confuses unexperienced editors. Seeing one version on any existing page as an example, they apply same template to different articles, while others revert their changes in accordance with their personal perception of this matter. All of this causes unnecessary editwars and confusion, potentially spreading to other Wikis, disovling the commonformat.
I saw in your edits that you had posted a message here and wanted to make it easier for Hammersoft to find the ANI discussion. Not much dedication needed. —Chrisahn (talk)18:22, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Arbitration
Miscellaneous
Oversighter changes
Bureaucrat changes
Rusalkii
NaomiAmethyst(overlooked last month)
Interface administrator changes
There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrative action review regarding an action which you performed.
You may beblocked from editing without further warning the next time you dont understand I was joking.The Ruler of All Wikis (talk)12:31, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.png%26amp%3baction%3dedit%26amp%3bredlink%3d1){kind=link}
