Hammersoft
Welcome to Meta!
editHello, Hammersoft. Welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Wikimedia Forum (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). Happy editing!
The Community Wishlist Survey
editHi,
You get this message because you’ve previously participated in the Community Wishlist Survey. I just wanted to let you know that this year’s survey is now open for proposals. You can suggest technical changes until 11 November: Community Wishlist Survey 2019.
You can vote from November 16 to November 30. To keep the number of messages at a reasonable level, I won’t send out a separate reminder to you about that. /Johan (WMF) 11:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Breitbart article
editI already confirmed that I am the author and you can see my bio on the piece states that I am this user. My articles on Breitbart are written under a pen name.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you. It was out of an abundance of caution in regards to outing. I hope you understand. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello again, this has been bugging me for days now, but the entry on the summary page claims my article "covers material already reported on earlier by Buzzfeed News." That falsely suggests there was no original material in my piece. Not only did I cover details of the discussion not covered in BuzzFeed (the resysopping of Floquenbeam, the Board Chair's response, the reaction to said response, and NewYorkBrad's proposal of what I can remember), I also covered something significant not yet brought up in any of the relevant on-wiki or off-wiki discussions (those who have since brought it up did so because of my reporting). Some details of what I reported were only reported in my article of those media outlets that have covered this story. Having it erroneously suggested that I simply rehashed what BuzzFeed already covered is rather annoying for a number of reasons. Could you please correct the error?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:13, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
winning
editThe 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.
it's not about winning or losing. it's about some of us being here to write an encyclopedia, and some of us being here to burn books in the street. talking pragmatism to book burners is a waste of breath; these are people who bring false charges of legal threat with impunity. so it goes. merry christmas. Slowking4 (talk) 12:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- It most emphatically is about winning. You've been banned from en.wiki but feel that doesn't matter. You are right, everyone else is wrong, and you've been on a 10+ year mission to prove it. This idea of a noble cause to write an encyclopedia when the very encyclopedia you claim to want to help has categorically insisted they don't want your help is a bunch of hoo ha. En.wiki isn't your encyclopedia. It's a group project, and your presence isn't wanted. But, of course, you know that. Which thus means...it's about winning. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- apparently one accuser was WMF banned recently. (I wonder what they did?) you understand that fraudulent changes tend to undermine the rest of the charges? I mirror the functionary behavior that everyone else is wrong, if you don't like the reposte, stop lunging. functionaries do not get to blackball editors based on fraud. but functionary misgovernance is merely a speed bump to doing the mission, it is not about prevailing in your adversarial processes. i'm having great fun collaborating with the finest digital humanists in the world; how is your battleground working for you? --Slowking4 (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- This isn't a court room, nor is this a fencing match. Your intent is clear, and you've proven my point. Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:13, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- apparently one accuser was WMF banned recently. (I wonder what they did?) you understand that fraudulent changes tend to undermine the rest of the charges? I mirror the functionary behavior that everyone else is wrong, if you don't like the reposte, stop lunging. functionaries do not get to blackball editors based on fraud. but functionary misgovernance is merely a speed bump to doing the mission, it is not about prevailing in your adversarial processes. i'm having great fun collaborating with the finest digital humanists in the world; how is your battleground working for you? --Slowking4 (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.