User Talk: Blue-Sonnet

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

{{NoACEMM}}

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
|archiveprefix=User talk:Blue-Sonnet/Archives/
|format=Y/F
|age=4320
|minkeepthreads=4
|archivebox=yes
|box-advert=yes
}}

A barnstar for you!

Thank you

Thanks for your help at the TonySpraks SPI! - The literary leader of the age ✉ 15:30, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

:Not a problem! I wasn't sure if I would do it at first, but then it became more and more obvious. It was also a little funny to show the evidence that way, I'm surprised I got away with it 😅
:Hopefully that'll show a clear behavioural pattern for future incidents, because they certainly don't give up easy.
:The other socks were doing the same thing (including being generally creepy to female editors) but there's only so much you can do on mobile and keep your sanity intact, so I limited it to two socks. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Season's greetings!

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 4px solid #FFD700;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 16px;" | 200px ↗
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" |

“Hi there! It looks like you may have written this unblock request using a large language model; if that is true, please see WP:NICETRY ↗ and…” Blue-Sonnet, to consistently help out at CAT:RFU, day after day, takes an incredible amount of kindness and patience, especially in today’s world ↗. I truly mean everything I said in my message ↗; thank you for all your work at unblocks and elsewhere and for what you do helping editors on all ends—from those who unfortunately Don’t Get It to those who are just confused and frustrated. Happy holidays, happy Holiday ↗, and I’m looking forward to seeing you over at CAT:RFU ↗ in the new year!

|} GoldRomean (talk) 19:07, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you so much, and I'll be glad to keep seeing you too ☺️ Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:26, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
::You're welcome ~2026-26604-38 ↗ (talk) 11:45, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Happy 25th Anniversary of Wikipedia!!

Feel free to read my story at User:Interstellarity/My Story and join in for some Wikipedia-related fun. I hope you like it. Interstellarity (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

TAIV

I just saw your sockpuppet ↗ report. Have you thought about requesting WP:TAIV ↗ permissions at WP:RFP/TAIV ↗? In this case, the TAs you reported geolocate to the same area of previous TAs by that sock. Last year when I was flagging TAs in RFP, an editor there suggested I apply for it. It has been super helpful in terms of determining vandalism patterns beyond behavior. Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

:I have at one point, I usually work on block appeals so it could be useful there too... The only hurdle might be the fact that I edit on mobile - do you think that would still work? Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
::It works in the mobile browser so I assume it also works in the app. Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
:::I use the browser actually so that's great - I'll definitely look into it, thank you! I've been editing slightly less recently for health reasons, but I'll pin the page to request when I return properly 🙂 Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:42, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
::::One unfortunate thing of mobile TAIPV is that you don't have access to the IP info feature ↗ using mobile view. This can be solved by going into desktop view, though. Otherwise it works the same as on desktop. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) ↗ 03:04, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::Good to know, I have to go to desktop view occasionally since Visual Editor on mobile view is wonky as all heck... Blue Sonnet (talk) 03:08, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Bubble tea for you, again!

Hi Sonnet... I know you! I've sent you a Wikilove message before, thanking you for being kind and caring when resolving other editors' conflicts. How you manage to have such a capacity communicate with sympathy and compassion awed me then, and is still aweing me now.

I'm typing this on a mobile device so can't get the stock image of bubble tea here, but rest assured here's a cup of it,
->> like, here <<-
flavoured with mocha and coconut milk.

Cheers! iris 3:34a 海盐沙冰 / aka irisChronomia / Talk 19:35, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

:Aw, thank you!
:If someone's been given literally every chance to do better and choose not to do so, then the grounds for a block are going to be much clearer for whichever admin picks it up - it's not just a simple misunderstanding, they just shouldn't be here (at least for the next six months or more). 😉 Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
::I've got the idea that they're an LTA when EWing at the 6th revert; my rationale being that a reasonable editor cannot be simultaneously familiar with wiki in-jokes yet agnostic of 3RR.
::At that point I just left to play videogames, thinking "it'll be resolved in an hour or two, and no one needs to entertain that user anymore". Probably as a form of denying ↗.
::Intentional failure to get the point seems, (when used with trolling intent,) more effective at prolonging their durations and wasting other contributors' work-hours. I might be wildly of mark, though, since I'm just a newborn, naive, 3-year-old. (I'm talking about the age of my account, ''obviously'' ;) 海盐沙冰 / aka irisChronomia / Talk 20:01, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

:::The complete U-turn is weird, it could easily be an LTA who decided that it's time for a new sock after getting bored of this one. Or a standard editor who fell into a pseudoscientific rabbit hole & thinks they can will things into existence, or they had something stressful happen recently that affected their judgement?

:::It's a pity but we may never really know the answer.

:::I've got the page watchlisted in case they're linked to another account in future... Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

:...and they're blocked!
:Now I'm off to play Cyberpunk & wait for TPA to be revoked.
:I hope they calm down and don't go that far, but I have the strangest feeling. They seemed genuine back in November so I wonder what happened there? Oh well. Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
::I wonder if my system can run that... 11WB (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
:::Ooh play it if you can, I've been totally addicted and have over 1000hrs - Keanu Reeves and Idris Elda make everything better! Blue Sonnet (talk) 23:28, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
::::50 squid is a bit dear. Might need to wait for the next sale... and determine whether my PC can even run it. 11WB (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::You should play Nier: Automata ↗ in the meantime 😉 Blue Sonnet (talk) 23:46, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::I've always had a grudge against the "future GPUs will run our games well" philosophy - perceived by me as an extravagant way to spend computational resources. CBP'77 is one of the (in)famous examples, and I think its success has played a role in said philosophy's adoption in the wider game devs community. E.g., 'CBP did this and is still tremendously successful, so it'll probably be fine for us to have meh-level optimizations'.
::::::I agree that it's still a spectacularly well-made game; playing it we can feel the people behind it are truly passionate about their work. Credits to CDPR's management for recognizing their mistakes and handing the creative freedom back to the devs, and to recognize said devs as artists than mere content generators. 海盐沙冰 / aka irisChronomia / Talk 09:33, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Yep on both fronts! AI is also screwing us over with RAM shortages which will stunt both future game development and the ability to actually play those games 😑 Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:31, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::My guess is that the shortage wouldn't last very long at all: buying 1/3 of the entire world's DRAM supply plus innumerable Blackwell GPUs is expensive, even for Microsoft. Meanwhile, not nearly enough people are paying them to keep this level of spending going. (iirc the highest tier of GPT subscription is still losing money, even at US$200/mo; it hardly pays the electricity bill).
::::::::Probably one of the accidental benefit of this machine learning arms race (I stubbornly refuse to call it AI) is the upscale / frame gen we get to have in games. This wild goose chase to integrate ML hardware into GPUs turns out to not be that pointless afterall.
::::::::I also find it funny that the RAM shortage serves as an ad campaign for AMD's x3d-CPUs for their lower sensitivity to RAM speeds, (iirc, discussions on TechPowerUp Forum talked about very small performance differences between 4,800- and 6,000-mhz ddr5s).
:::::::: 海盐沙冰 / aka irisChronomia / Talk 14:07, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::Ah, I remember the good old days when AI was either science fiction or an algorithm that caused Oblivion NPC's to randomly steal forks from each other... Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:32, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::Might want to move this discussion to somewhere like Discord. WP:NOTFORUM ↗. 11WB (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::I'll take a trouting for this as my initial reply was off-topic. Sorry! 11WB (talk) 14:39, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::'s fine, my brain can go off on tangents easily so it's good to have an external reminder of when it's happening 😁 Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:40, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I spotted your Discord join the primary Wikipedia server. With your permission I could send you an invite to the NPP server. It's much smaller and allows for easier and faster communication with fellow editors and admins. 11WB (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Please - I'm not on Discord often, but that way it'll be all set up when I do! I've joined the main server but not any subs yet. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:09, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::notforum is nominally less frequently enforced for users own talk pages, although it's not stated / supported in any policy. however for the essay arguing for the social nature of wikipedia, see WP:ISN ↗.
:::::::::::::::i hold the view that random discussions can sometimes create ideas for improvements of the encyclopedia. i for one was thinking about sourcing the x3d-memory thing to add to AMD CPU's article. 海盐沙冰 / aka irisChronomia / Talk 16:53, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Diplomacy Barnstar!

Hello! I have long been lurking and learning the complex workings of en.wiki, and have seen your (simultaneously brave and kind) gradual movement into spaces where you are helping relieve comms time for admins and trying to help upset editors, or those who aren't really grasping key Policies and Guidelines, to come back into the fray in a collaborative way.

Thanks to a post on the Teahouse today I just looked into the Barnstars page for the first time, and when reading through the available list, you jumped to mind as the most deserving editor I've ever observed for the Diplomacy Barnstar. (And mind you, as a "rules learning completionist" I started reading the Administrator's Noticeboard from Archives Page 1 last year 😅. I find "how we got here" to be as interesting an element of the PAGs as the living documents of those themselves).

Thanks for all you do here, you're an absolute inspiration and a great example of how people can find specific niches to help that didn't even previously exist. I know you had at least a couple admins push back on your unblock contributions early on (and I'm sure you, like me, understand why burned out admins in that space would be wary at first!) but you found a delicate balance, kept going, and now you and at least one other user following in your footsteps have made significant inroads helping keep the backlog manageable. You are awesome, have a great day and thank you again!

{| style="width: 95%; height: 128px; border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | 120px ↗

|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.7em;" | '''The Barnstar of Diplomacy'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For impressive and lasting diplomatic contributions across WP and Talk pages, including your unblock backlog assistance, top-notch communications with new editors , and deep commitment to Assume Good Faith as much as you can! Sophiatries (talk) 02:35, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
|}

:''[You] started reading the Administrator's Noticeboard from Archives Page 1 last year''!???????
:Please don't tell me you finished it within a year; I envy that. 海盐沙冰 / aka irisChronomia / Talk 03:25, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
::@IrisChronomia hahaha sadly no chance there, I'm still working through! This is terrible sleep hygiene but I actually read a page or two as I'm trying to fall asleep at night, so much of it ends up highly technical or procedural that it can put me to sleep pretty easily.
::(This is AN btw rather than ANI, which would probably keep me awake as it's so hectic and dramatic! Especially early on, AN was often just administrators puzzling how to solve emergent technical problems from how our implementation of MediaWiki works in practice; the recent troubleshooting around "how do we deal with temporary accounts in practice?" is the closest contemporary example I've seen to the conversations that proliferated across early years on the admin pages.)
::The very first AN archive page is funny because it actually consists of a few threads copied over from one of the most active admin's talk page; so many of these convos kept arising that they decided a central Noticeboard was in fact needed, and moved the preliminary convos over there! En.wiki has always been built on BOLDness :-D
::Sophiatries (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
:::Sounds like a very interesting read indeed! I wonder if and how will future history / anthropology studies be diving into these details when discussing the 21th century culture - a widely trusted source covering basically everything (notable), built, unprecedentedly, soly by part-time (and some full-time wikipediholics ↗) volunteers.
:::Rant: Knowing that Wikipedia being one of Google Search's preferred sources sometimes made me feel pressured, in the sense that "this is no longer ''just'' a hobbyist project but something people relying on for factual info". That pressure keeps driving me to defend it from falsehood and soapy stuff ↗. On the flip side, it also speaks volume of the resilience and quality control of Wikipedia - being able to keep its (sometimes relentless) neutrality and factuality despite being such a prominent source.
:::I think it's for the same reason editing Wikipedia feels empowering to me: as if truth started to mean something, again; that somewhere in the world two plus two still makes four ↗. 海盐沙冰 / aka irisChronomia / Talk 04:14, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
:Thank you! Blue Sonnet (talk) 06:43, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Sadly, chatbots aren't reasonable

I thought I'd take this away from the high-traffic drama board and first wanted to say, again, how impressed I am with your patient guidance to blocked editors. I think having taken up new page patrol in the last year has really worn down my patience and AGF capacity. The current crop of free/cheap chatbots seem to favour increasingly illogical and nonsensical responses as a discussion continues, and I'm afraid you may have reached that point with my latest report. Everyone's personal threshold is different but when I find bot-like responses start taking this surreal turn, I try not to sink too much more of my time into a lost cause. If nothing else, it's good "training" to help us humans recognise the stylistic patterns and preferred hallucinations of today's chatbots. '''ClaudineChionh''' (''she/her'' ↗ · talk · email ↗ · global ↗) 13:32, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

:Yep, this one is particularly trying! I've been trying to catch it out by pointing out logical inconsistencies, that way admins have a more solid base to revoke TPA - I think some responses might be human, but the vast, vast majority are from our old friend, Mr Chatham G. Pee-Tee... Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:49, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
::A potential fun thing to read regarding the illogical use of language (in humans): Receptive aphasia ↗ and formal thought disorder ↗. To me the ways modern LLMs fail resemble a little bit of many human conditions, but never any of them completely.
::The following is my absolutely WP:OR rant.
::Even a parrot speaking with perfect fluency and grammar may not comprehend any of its content - that's what I think of LLMs. Machine learning fail differently from humans because they don't have a human mind and neither a mind whatsoever at all; instead they are glorified statistics on steroids. We find some sensible human-generated text, pile it together and dump them in front of this big statistical machine, and say "find me patterns". This machine will very easily output a statistical model for generating phrases and short sentences, because there's no short supply of exact copy of ways one can arrange characters and words that are grammartical and correct. It's like looking at a maths textbook and finding out that the exact sequence "1+1=" is always followed by "2"; repeat this for a thousand other textbooks, one may reliably figure out the answer to all equations from 1x1 up to 99x99 by sheer proof of exhaustion ↗. It's like the infinite monkey theorem ↗ but with humans and computers, where instead we're recording every sequence of keystrokes hit by every human and using that as the basis for statistical analysis.
::That's why in my opinion , the length of usable texts generated by LLMs gets progressively longer as scale of the model and amount of data used to train it get ever larger: because ''any'' logical statement one can ever write down in a short enough span, ''has probably already been written down'' numerous times. The problem is positive evidence supporting a specific arrangement of words is only in ample supply for short spans of text; the amount of valid combinations of words gets exponentially larger as length of the text grows, and positive evidence for each of them becomes rarer and rarer. Eventually we arrive at the point of exhausting the entire reachable Internet for positive evidence as training data, and buying one third the world's DRAM supply to churn through said data, all in the pursuit of generating sensible text that's ''just'' a little bit longer than previously feasible. The LLM arms race means organizations with a vested interest in their share prices don't have time to stop and consider the viewpoint that "maybe using only positive evidence is a flawed and inefficient idea for machine learning".
::But it ''is'' flawed and inefficient. Because we have direct evidence for a much, much better model, that are yet so familiar to all of us: ''us''. The poverty of the stimulus ↗ argument suggest that humans infer ↗ the semantics and logic of language using both positive and negative evidence, because a child is never exposed to positive evidence for most valid occurances of the language they're learning, yet they... ''us'' still learn to comprehend and use the language.
::Thanks for reading my rant :p iris 1:06a (+8) 海盐沙冰 / aka irisChronomia / Talk 17:06, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
:::Yep, the issue with pattern recognition alone is that it can't determine when to stop - so you get the LLM repeating the same points over and over.
:::They're not able to recognise the social cues that others are losing patience; if someone asks the same question it doesn't think "hey, maybe I made an error and didn't answer it properly the first time", it just repeats the same pattern as before, because it's received the same input as before.
:::Image generation is similar, it repeats patterns yet misses small cues that real people notice. Hair swirls back into itself, braids and shoelaces melt together, object permanence is out of the window if an item disappears behind something else. Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
:::@IrisChronomia great observations, which reminded me of the stochastic parrot ↗ concept that was introduced early during this GenAI boom (wow, has it really been four years already?). By the way have you or @Blue-Sonnet checked out WP:WikiProject AI Cleanup ↗? '''ClaudineChionh''' (''she/her'' ↗ · talk · email ↗ · global ↗) 21:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
::::Yep, I sometimes nip on there to tidy up non-neutral wording or use it to point out how much damage AI can do to Wikipedia when an editor who uses it goes "but it's teh future!" when we ask them to stop 😉
::::I'm not editing as much as I normally do, but when I get back into it that'll be one of my first stops. Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::The monkey on a typewriter popped into my head as I was reading your comment @IrisChronomia, and then magically it was name-dropped. I agree with what you said there. 11WB (talk) 10:15, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::Well, this is an interesting discussion. Maybe accounts that use LLM's here should just be advised to move to moltbook where they might be happier. As for statements like {{tq|neither a mind whatsoever at all; instead they are glorified statistics on steroids}}, perhaps there is something more than that. There are interesting emergent substructures, circuits. If you are interested in looking inside the models check out Christopher Olah's work and things like this ↗. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:19, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Bookmarked! If you really want to be freaked out, here's an article about a study where AI was totally fine with (hypothetically) blackmailing and killing a human being in order to survive: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/ai-might-let-you-die-to-save-itself?hl=en-GB ↗ Blue Sonnet (talk) 12:40, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::I asked Grok today whether Wikipedia or Grokipedia is more reliable. It responded with:
::::::::"Wikipedia is currently far more reliable as a general-purpose encyclopedia, and it's the clearly better choice for most people seeking accurate, well-sourced information in 2026." 11WB (talk) 12:50, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::Things are moving very fast. I'm guessing that it won't be long before there are agents editing Wikipedia content and I'm not sure we will be able to reliably identify them. Certainly, the agent I use sometimes to help with coding has much better reasoning and planning abilities than me. Watching it gather information and think through a task in real time is both horrifying and inspiring. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:26, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::I'm aware of the emergent mind article and Anthropic's famous demo of an agentic LLM starting to blackmail.
::::::::::I myself hold the view that many mystic 'behaviors' demonstrated by said models can also have mundane explanations, and when it comes to blackmailing, said explanation 'd be that the wish to survive and rushing to preserve oneself is overwhelmingly common in the LLMs' training data - think dystopian science fictions and random discussions about AI on the Internet, you name it. It's not like data is adequately labelled, either: it's impossible to label the entire Internet jokeno matter how much Captcha you forces a regular user to do joke_end. Without adequately labelling, the model cannot differenciate between "good" and "bad" behaviours: the world inside ''Cat's Cradle ↗'' and ''[Nineteen Eighty-four|1984]]'' is deliberately brutal and dystopian as a rebuke and condemnation of the underlying societal problems in the novel. The authors are convincing the reader of an idea or belief, through the use of storytelling, and the emotions it evokes - sympathy, pity, distain and repulsion. The moral of the story is never addressed, and the argument ''is'' the reader's feeling itself. This underlying subtlety - the interaction between author and reader, the understanding that stories are rarely meant to be interpreted literally, the parabolic presentation of arguments - depends on the reader's ability to feel emotion. And it's unclear where should we even begin to simulate subtexts like such in the machines. The models are digesting human-generated texts ''prima facie ↗'', even when it is not intended way of interpretation. Modeling human speech without distinguishing between fanfictions, Skynet and GLaDOS ↗ (a hybrid of fun, parable and irony) from regular news reports (literally intended to be taken literally), is going to give absurd results. We don't realize this problem because differentiating satire ↗ and parody ↗ from serious text seems so trivial to us so we often forget how complex a process it is technically. There are many language-related tasks we perform routinely without even thinking about it, that are regardless extremely hard to model mathematically and to implement into a machine. For more on the complexity of many routine mental tasks we perform, I strongly recommend this book ↗, available in full via the WP Library.
::::::::::And when the model is trained on human texts written with serious, ironic, humourous, parodic, role-playing and whatever intent mashed together as a single category, what the machine spews out can be look quite hilarious and otherworldly to us. And as the LLMs' chat history reaches the length of a short novel, it is quite reasonable to expect it mimicking some of the common tropes - like the immoral self-preservating AIs - from its training data. In some sense, the LLM is more of a mirror of ourselves than an alien creature. We model them on all the dystopias and toxic 4chan chats, and are shocked to see it mimicking a vicious, hateful creature - I mean, duh! What else should we expect from a Black Mirror ↗?
::::::::::I'm suspicious of Anthropic's own blogs because of the looming conflicts of interest. Namely, that I'm worried the corporate arms race turned malignant is subtly affecting the ways they represent their research for shock values and to awe people, hoping to attract more users and investors.
::::::::::tldr; Anthropic's blog is fun to read, but I take it with a big grain of salt and always consult independent research papers.
::::::::::iris 21:52 (+8); basically rewritten entirely the next day at 2:17 (+8); updated 2:59 to have my words make sense. I'm sorry as I'm not using any spellcheckers when writing and have to proofread everything myself, as a way to improve my minor autism-caused communication disabilities. 海盐沙冰 / aka irisChronomia / Talk 13:52, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Consider archiving?

Hi @Blue-Sonnet. Just wanted to ask if you have considered archiving some of your talk page yet? The quoted number to keep it under is 75kb (WP:TALKCOND ↗). Yours is at about 130kb. There are bots to automate this, though I do it manually myself. You've rightly earned a number of barnstars for your excellent work at AAB and AN/I, so those may be worth transferring to their own page in your userspace! 11WB (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

:Ah yep, I'll get started on that this week - I've got a basic counter for stars on my userpage but never figured out how to put the stars themselves on there... Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
::You just copy and paste the code from one page to the other! 11WB (talk) 21:52, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
:::I recall you said that you're on mobile only? I would be happy to do this on your behalf if you have a page already set up. 11WB (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
::::That's what I still need to do 😅 I'm reading through Cluebot's instructions but I've had my usual two hours sleep and my brain isn't braining right now... Blue Sonnet (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::I tried using the bots and gave up as I couldn't figure out how to time it correctly. I'm much more satisfied doing it myself. Simple copy and paste every so often into an archive page! 11WB (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::Yup - I'm giving myself til Sunday to figure it out then I'll do one of the easy options 😁 Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::If you just copy and paste one of the preset templates at User:ClueBot_III/ArchiveThis, it works fine. I believe I pasted the one in the 'Numbered archives (with archive box)', though I later removed the box-advert parameter. I would also recommend changing the age number, since it defaults to 90 days. If it messes up things, you should just be able to undo the bot archiving and {{tl|Db-error}} the pages created. But preset templates only work for if you don't care about being in control of your archiving (though, {{tl|DNAU}} allows you to extend how long it takes till archiving for a single thread). 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) ↗ 19:56, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::That's super useful, thanks! I was looking at the instructions on how to change the default parameters but it was 4am and my brain turned off - for some reason my ADHD is really kicking in when it comes to archiving, when I'm normally pretty good work technical stuff... It's good to know there's a way to undo it too! Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::On the desktop view for diffs (and the page history for the advanced mobile interface), there is a 'Undo' button that appears. It doesn't work when there is an edit conflict ↗, but when there isn't it allows easy undoing of edits. I don't think archiving causes edit conflicts, but if it does, you will have to manually go to an old version of the page prior to the archiving and copy the archived text to then paste on the newest revision of the page. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) ↗ 20:24, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::Ah. I totally remembered that there's an undo button and didn't forget it existed earlier.
::::::::::Yep. Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

For any TP watchers, I'm still planning to archive but have some personal stuff going on, so it might be another couple of days or so. Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:11, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

:My notifications had the word "stalkers", but here it's "watchers". I must admit, the latter sounds far less creepy. 11WB (talk) 11:38, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
::I've seen people tag their posts as "talk page stalkers" so I used that originally, then realised not everyone might have seen that term before! Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:20, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
:::There's a simple cut and paste that will set up auto archiving at Help:Archiving (plain and simple) ↗ if that's of any assistance. Once it's published, you can go in and easily change parameters (timing, number of threads to archive, number to leave on the page, etc.) Valereee (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
::::I know the term, I just think it's a bit creepy. 😅 11WB (talk) 15:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::By the way, just to disclose, I do occasionally check back in on this talk page as I find the discussions to be both interesting and positive! If that makes me a stalker, so be it! 11WB (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::We should feature "being a TP stalker" in Wikipediholism test ↗ with a rating of ''10 points and additional 1 for every perma-watched page''. 海盐沙冰 / aka irisChronomia / Talk 11:30, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::If ever Blue Sonnet requested me to stop replying on this page, I would respect that without hesitation. 11WB (talk) 11:53, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::It would be fascinating to know who is watching certain pages, but I've not figured out how to see that (if it's possible)...
::::::::BTW I've got a rep at work for being locating interesting complaints & fraud cases, so I guess it makes sense that my Talk page is interesting too! Blue Sonnet (talk) 07:49, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
::{{outdent|6}} For privacy reasons ↗, we can't see who else is watching a page, but I ''can'' tell you that your page currently has 34 watchers ↗. '''ClaudineChionh''' (''she/her'' ↗ · talk · email ↗ · global ↗) 06:27, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
::: ''Ooh, does that mean I'm famous?!?'' 😁 
:::I'm guessing the majority are people who've posted here and have automatic watchlisting set up, or where I've helped out on their appeal perhaps... Welp, it's not scarily high at least! Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
::::Ugh - automatic archiving didn't work for some reason, I'll try to fix it when my brain will agree to help me out. Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::Cluebot can take several days to start archiving (per WP:CHOOSEBOT ↗). 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) ↗ 20:05, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::I misread days for hours, thanks for clearing that up! Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::For some context, it took around 6 days for the bot to kick in on my talk page, so you will probably need to wait for a couple more days. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) ↗ 20:16, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::FWIW, there's a schmancy script at User:Elli/OneClickArchiver that will put a little "archive" button at the top right of all talk page sections. Click and it archives that section. (Also FWIW, there are a gazillion really excellent scripts at wp:User scripts/list ↗. I go through it every once in a while to see if I've missed some super helpful script, but there's also a newsletter about scripts, I think it goes out every few months, you can sign up at Wikipedia:Scripts++/Subscribe ↗. There's even a script for installing/uninstalling scripts so you don't have to edit your js file every time you want to try one out.) Valereee (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::That's really useful - I've got a few scripts installed so I can see things like gender, last active date etc. I'll have to take a look! Blue Sonnet (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::For gender? Does that pull information from the editor user page? 11WB (talk) 03:16, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::Yep, very handy for making sure you don't accidentally misgender someone - it's a really good script since it also shows when they were recently active at the top of their Talk/User page!
::::::::I'll see if I can remember which one it was, it's been a while since I installed it... Blue Sonnet (talk) 03:42, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::Found it! User:PleaseStand/userinfo.js Blue Sonnet (talk) 03:46, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::I don't mean to necropost ↗ here, but you've got February 2025 discussions in August 2025 archive. 🥶 11WB (talk) 05:04, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::...and I've got no idea why the bot did that! I might fix it one day, but if anyone else figures it out in the meantime you have my permission to fix it! Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Obzidiann

An editor can really be a persistent sockpuppeteer, use AI, lie about using AI, lie about sockpuppetry, push POVs, misrepresent their sources, suppressed cited content, conduct COI editing, and brazenly promote the organizations they are affiliated with, just because they repeatedly apologize over and over? I'm surprised, and not looking forward to this headache of all the above returning in six months. Yuchitown (talk) 02:33, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

:I've seen cases where sockpuppeteers have changed their ways and redeemed themselves after the standard offer - very rare but possible.
:I feel like an editor is much more likely to return to socking if they feel like they've got nothing to lose (if they can never come back, they only benefit by continuing to sock) but with the SO they've got something they can work towards.
:To my knowledge, every ed editor is eligible for SO - however, they'll only be back in six months if an admin agrees to unblock them and they've got a '''lot''' to address first. Blue Sonnet (talk) 03:06, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Your very welcome!

Danke zeihr! Here’s some baklava and a cheesy stroopwaffle /)

: Thank you, I will use the help and the links, so I can be more productive and improve my knowledge especially about topic boxes and adding links to backup info. Ajron Bach

Ajron Bach (talk) 08:02, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Mr B

About your comment in this discussion ↗ – I had the exact same suspicion about the identity of the editor. I agree that it's not worth the time and effort to open a report on this account now, but it's worth remembering since it's pretty likely there will be other socks... --''bonadea'' contributions ↗ talk 21:06, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

:Ironically I was just considering whether to bother with logging it, then Rosguill tagged him as a sock! It's not too hard to spot him, thankfully.
:I might pop a message on his Commons page for the admin there, since it's currently a temp block and it'll only take me thirty seconds or so... Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

:It took fifteen 😉
:Up to them what they'd like to do next with that info!
:Thanks for letting me know though, I'm never sure whether it's worth logging SPI's if they're already blocked, so sometimes I'll just leave a note in case they appeal in future. Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
:Quack! ;) 海盐沙冰 / aka irisChronomia / Talk 13:40, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the help.

I believe I solved the issue 🙏 Edit for4 (talk) 08:48, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

:Glad to help! Blue Sonnet (talk) 08:50, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

!!

AN

Hi @Blue-Sonnet! I would advise not getting drawn into a discussion with @Shiningr3ds. They, as you correctly said, feel very strongly about the close. I was going to send you a talk page message anyway to advise you to strike out or remove the bludgeoning mention, as that is almost always going to be an emotional trigger for the accused. Unfortunately, I see they already responded. WP:COAL ↗ is the best thing I can link here. I agree with your position entirely by the way. Thanks! 11WB (talk) 12:05, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

:Yep I realised that too late! It all got so heated that I just ended up withdrawing totally & decided to revisit the thread in a few hours once things had calmed down a little.
:They edited one or two comments whilst I was replying, which didn't help - then the proposal got updated but I wasn't in the original ping & didn't realise!
:I was 50/50 about the indef after it was changed & was going down the more lenient route but didn't really get the chance.
:Then my ADHD kicked in and I got totally overloaded. I figured it was best to withdraw and come back later with a fresh perspective, so I could be as fair as possible. Blue Sonnet (talk) 12:11, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
::We may be referring to different things here. I am talking about the merge review. This comment specifically ↗. 11WB (talk) 12:13, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
:::Ah ok! I've just had a bit of a dispute at ANI so that's where my mind went 😅 Blue Sonnet (talk) 12:16, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
::::Just wanted to say here that I still have the utmost respect for the areas of the project you contribute to. One AN/I thread is enough to drain all the energy out of me completely. Much prefer sticking to article improvement and GANs, rather than the drama! 11WB (talk) 01:01, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::Thank you! I'm aware I should probably stay away from ANI a bit more, but I've told myself if there's a community decision, I'm directly involved or I've got something unique to add then it's ok to join in - the third point is a bit subjective though, I should probably a be a little stricter with myself!
:::::It's such a dramaboard that you can guarantee at least one side is upset & can lose their objectivity at any moment.
:::::There's also a tendency for people to pile on when someone isn't playing ball, so it's often good to have an outsider say "hang on a minute, we might be getting carried away here". I'm trying ''really'' hard to be that person whenever I can 🙂 Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:52, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::If ever you wanted to, you could get into some article contributions, or even try publishing your first article. WP:VG ↗ always welcomes new contributors for example. User:NinjaRobotPirate/Games contains many games that have established notability and lack articles!
::::::By the way, you've probably noticed by now that I stop by your talk page quite often. I've found that when I look at your user contributions, you're often involved in some quite interesting cases (such as the Tranel one recently). If ever you want me to cease doing this, I will stop, no questions asked! 11WB (talk) 22:22, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::(I don't think this quite rises to the level of stalking... I hope not anyway!) 11WB (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::It's fine, I do the same to some admins TBH 😁 It helps me understand how to deal with difficult situations that might be similar to the one I'm looking at. I'll definitely take a look at the games, I'm still stuck on mobile editing k and console gaming) because AI made RAM too expensive, but perhaps I can work on a draft in my sandbox...
::::::::The mobile site likes corrupting edits after a couple of paragraphs and refreshing the page when you switch tabs, which is a total PITA and why I make smaller-size edits than I'd like (and have to fix them after publishing because it corrupts the Preview pane too!)
::::::::I've played a lot of older games over the years too, so there are probably some on there that could do with attention... Blue Sonnet (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::If ever you do write an article, I would be happy to format the inline references out on your behalf. It is the code that is more of a faff to do on mobile I've found. 11WB (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::I'll definitely let you know - article creation is bloody complicated so I've stayed away from it until I get more mainspace experience, but I just enjoy the user-interactions and helping other editors in difficult situations so much that I get distracted! I've been trying to work in mainspace a bit more, so I'll probably ask you to give any articles I create a once-over until I'm used to it. Assuming I don't get distracted again, which I probably will 😁 Blue Sonnet (talk) 22:42, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::Not meaning to necropost here, but I was reminded of your comment today. I was having a conversation with somebody about RAM and they also said the price increases are due to AI. DDR4 ↗ is ridiculously expensive and DDR5 ↗ is astronomical. However DDR3 ↗, despite being older, is affordable and is still usable even now. I would recommend building a system based around DDR3, from 2012-14 personally. Then upgrade when the cost (hopefully) goes back down. This is reminiscent of GPU prices that surged when the pandemic broke out in 2020. 11WB (talk) 02:30, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::The problem being that the last systems to support D3 are Haswells (4th Core) and Bulldozers (AMD FX); and the best of them don't get nearly as close to Zen 2 or 12th Core.
::::::::::::[ Also because that affordable DDR3s are slow. They bottleneck less with games made back when they're mainstream, but are now only ~50% the bandwidth of DDR4s. Older CPUs also get very little cache sizes to cope with RAM latencies. cf. 15MB L3 for IvyBridge-EP (i7-4960X). ] 海盐沙冰 / aka irisChronomia / Talk 09:35, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::That's a good point - I've still got my PS5 so I'll probably be considering a change when the next generation comes out. I'm hoping the AI bubble will have deflated a little by then, we've had some good news with Sora ↗ at least! I was thinking of getting an old used laptop or base unit from work, since they sell off old units. I used to build PC's but that was back in the nineties, I'm guessing the process has changed a bit since then!
:::::::::::::One of the nice things about consoles is the plug-and-play nature, you can upgrade PC's but then you're always having to check whether your unit can play a specific game & which bit to upgrade next. But on the plus side, you '''can''' upgrade it.
:::::::::::::I've got a 360, PS4 & PS5, so I have to use the 360 if I want to play Fable or DA Origins. If/when it breaks I'll be so upset! Blue Sonnet (talk) 09:47, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::It's arguable that building PCs are getting easier over time, specifically, that more user-friendly designs and fault protection systems became mainstream, and all interfaces became more accessible. BIOS with graphical user interfaces that support mouse input used to be unheard-of, but are now standard issue. This also applies to the idea of "the computer overclocking itself" - it took me sometime to finally accept that a human mind is no longer needed for proper overclocking, and that hitting the Turbo Boost / Precision Boost option is all I have to do.
::::::::::::::tldr; it's fairly harder for one to accidentally break a component than before, especially with well-made parts (motherboards, power supplies, properly grounded cases).海盐沙冰 / aka irisChronomia / Talk 09:57, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::That's good to hear, I might end up getting a unit from work & upgrading parts as/when I can afford it. Although now I've written this, I've realised that we're all hybrid workers & use laptops 😅 I'm sure some people are using PC's, otherwise I can look into getting a refurb from somewhere when the prices calm down a little. Blue Sonnet (talk) 10:15, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::PC is becoming more of a niche now, and the only ones needing them are gamers and performance-sensitive researchers / artists / etc.. Apart from that, it seemed like most things one'd like to do can run on a MacBook. 海盐沙冰 / aka irisChronomia / Talk 10:49, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Yeah, smartphones can do an incredible amount of things that we used to need a full PC for! Blue Sonnet (talk) 11:00, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

dear blue sonnet

i don't know you fr but you seem nice and cool, so ur considered as my favorites, welcome. Alasteon (talk) 01:42, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

:Sorry, I forgot to say thank you here! Blue Sonnet (talk) 22:35, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
::it's no problem, ur welcome! Alasteon (talk) 22:36, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

yo guess what

blue sonnet, they got me LMAOOOO i was tryna edit things right ykyk but they got me BRUUUHH man im dead 💀💀 Alasteon (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

:It looks like Valereee is worried about your replies at ANI?
:It's not a full block so you can still make suggestions for other editors to double check and make for you.
:I think you should build up lots of evidence to show that you're a good editor. You can then appeal the block & point to all the evidence as proof that you should be unblocked.
:You can do this two ways, it's up to you if you want to do one or both:
:*'''Submit edit requests'''
::This is where you suggest an edit and another person will double-check that it's good before making it for you ''(easy mode, see Wikipedia:Edit requests ↗)''
:*'''Use AFC'''
::You create new draft articles from scratch & submit them for another editor to check & publish the article for you ''(hard mode, see Wikipedia:Articles for creation ↗)''
:I think you should start with edit requests ↗ & have at least a dozen accepted suggestions in your history before thinking about creating new draft articles. New articles are really hard, which is why I haven't made any yet!
:Doing one or both of these things will also show that you're really good at working with other people as a team.
:A second option is to reply to Valereee on your Talk page or appeal your block officially, explain what happened and promise to take things seriously. This ''could'' work but everything hinges on what you write, it'd have to be really, really good because you've not got much proof yet (like playing Dark Souls when you've never played Soulslikes before. And you're blindfolded).
:If you look through my Talk page archive you'll see that I help blocked editors a ton.
:IMO the best block appeals are when the editor can say: ''"I know I can be a good editor, it's safe to unblock me because I have loads of proof to back me up. I suggested lots of improvements and other editors agreed that they made Wikipedia better. If you unblock me, I can make those improvements myself."'' Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:10, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
::Coming to another editor's talk page and saying "they got me, I'm dead" in a sarcastic manner is an own goal ↗. Talk pages are not private. They are public, just like every other page on the project. The blocking administrator will see this as undermining anything you could have said in an appeal. @Alasteon 11WB (talk) 00:25, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
:::I'll admit I wasn't sure how to take the message, but they're a younger editor so I decided to give the benefit of the doubt & respond seriously - if they're not being serious then I either won't hear back from them or it'll become clear shortly, but if they are being serious then maybe I've been a bit helpful. Either way, I figured I'd give it a shot even if I'm being a bit naive - I'll be interested to see whether I'm right or not 🙂 Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:35, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
::::No worries. I seem to have adopted an approach where I treat everybody like adults, forgetting that many editors are not! 11WB (talk) 00:40, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
::i gotchu man, no worries, thank you so much! i mean im an introvert so ill try my best to talk with them and if i got the strength to do it so yk, but thank you so much! Alasteon (talk) 02:37, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
:::No probs, good luck! Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:42, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
::::it didnt work Alasteon (talk) 22:52, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::It's not a massive loss, you can still work on the edit requests I suggested above - do that for a few months (the longer the better, honest) and you'll be in a much stronger place to try again!
:::::Yes, there's a wall between you and unrestricted editing but you've got a ladder - you just need to build it.
:::::Think of each accepted edit request as a rung on the ladder.
:::::When it's tall enough, you can ask an admin whether you're ok to climb the ladder and get back to the other side. There's a chance they might say "it's not quite tall enough yet" or "it's a bit wobbly", but you've still got a way to get past this with a little work. Admins don't want you climbing a bad ladder (have poor quality edits) 'cause you'll only end up in further trouble down the line!
:::::If you think it's a bit too stressful right now, you can come back to the ladder another time - or build it as fast or slow as you like.
:::::Work on good edit requests to show you're able to edit Wikipedia productively, then a future appeal is much more likely to be accepted.
:::::Does that make sense? Blue Sonnet (talk) 23:03, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::yes Alasteon (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Great! Good luck and let me know if you need anything!
:::::::Oh, I can't remember if I mentioned it before but you'll have an individual mentor who can help with questions you have about editing - just go to the Wikipedia:Community portal ↗ & you should see an option there. There's someone at the Wikipedia:Teahouse ↗ at any time of the day or night.
:::::::We all want to see you do well here and stay for a long time, you've just got some guardrails on for a little while. That'll help you to become a great editor in the future, so definitely keep at it!
:::::::Here's the link for the wizard, make sure to bookmark it so you've got it ready: Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard ↗ Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:20, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Feel like I am being set up

I be brutally honest. I am angry and stressed at the thought of how low others may be willing to reach - and don't want to make a mistake that despite I have done nothing wrong, I feel like I am going to get fxxked wrongfully. I am not sure if I am paranoid but it's just too much to be a coincidence to me. I am fairly sure now someone is trying hard to pretend to be me and get me blocked indefinitely for Taiwan. A new account use the exact same sources https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taiwan_independence_movement&diff=prev&oldid=1345340451 ↗ as I did from The Conversation and multiple others. They even use the exact same precise edit summary phrasing as I did - "address the elephant in the room".https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Constitution_of_the_Republic_of_China&diff=prev&oldid=1345444368 ↗ I use that phrase often with Taiwan. I received notification earlier today when they replied to me in my old thread saying they added my proposed edits.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Constitution_of_the_Republic_of_China&diff=prev&oldid=1345446654 ↗ Yesterday I had an argument with another user who I suppose had looked at my talk page and is aware of my block. I can't shake this feeling given the close timing they want to exploit my block. Could be them or someone else, but my gut is already very certain I am being set up and given the timing - they are my top suspect - and feel they studied my past edits and even my usual formatting. (Using italics when I quote). I trust you probably have a better idea than me on how I should deal with this best.
JaredMcKenzie (talk) 10:04, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

:Hmm, that's a strange situation - in aware that there are some LTA's k long term abuse) accounts that like to mimic editors to get them into trouble, not it's pretty obvious when a Checkuser ↗ looks into the technical side of things and can see it's two different people. @Oshwah have you come across this situation before? Sorry I'm not sure who to ask about this. (I'm not sure if you're a CU but it wouldn't be appropriate to ask for one right now anyway!) Blue Sonnet (talk) 11:06, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
::JaredMcKenzie, Blue-Sonnet - I just got your message and ping. Stand by; I’m looking into it and I’ll get back to you. ~Oshwah~(talk) ↗ (contribs) ↗ 19:59, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
:::Thank you so much - I'm not quite sure what's going on here so any advice would be wonderful! Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
:::I really appreciate you looking into it. It means a lot as don't like second guessing things and having this in the back of my mind. It was the similar phrasing, and use of the same sources, which felt unusual to me. That said, I understand these things can also happen coincidentally, so I'll leave it in your hands and won't speculate further.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 00:33, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Bahu Hamari Rajnikant

Hello Glad U had Replied i want to suggest some changes which were mentioned in episode of rajni robot like powers but in article bahu hamari rajnikant there is no section of her power so i had edited change but then it start reverted i had send detail of episodes i had given evidence of links but then also it was reverted so what i can do to make that permanent

One more time thanking you for reading my problem

Pratham Sinha Pratham31sinha (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

:Hi @Pratham31sinha, the problem was that your edits weren't written in the right way & looked like you might have used an AI or LLM - Wikipedia:NEWLLM ↗ explains why this can be a problem.
:Perhaps you can learn a bit more about how Wikipedia works, then try to add it again when you know more? The article isn't going anywhere and there are no time limits, so the best way to make sure your edit stays put is to make sure it's the best edit you can possibly make. Here are some ideas:
:#Try Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure ↗ first, this will teach you the basics.
:#Once you've done that, you can find helpful tips and tricks on the Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia ↗ pages.
:#I can also help you find a mentor - another volunteer who will be happy to give you guidance and advice for as long as you want.
:Does that sound like a good plan? Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
:You also need to pay attention to any warnings you get, like this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pratham31sinha#c-Hammersoft-20260328174900-Edit_warring ↗. Everyone can edit Wikipedia pages, if your edit isn't right for Wikipedia then it may be removed - when this happens you need to follow the "Bold, Revert, Discuss" cycle (click here). ↗
:Nothing on Wikipedia is permanent, it's constantly evolving and changing over time.
:If someone undoes your edit, you go to the article Talk page to ask why and try to understand what the problem is so that you can fix it ''together''. You absolutely ''cannot'' fight the other person by pushing and forcing your preferred edit through. That's not how this website works - we all have to work together, ok? Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:48, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
::See If i will edit without using ai and give evidence in the forms of link then the wikipedia editors will not remove it? I m doing this because there is another robot name as Chitti in there powers section is there no evidence is written thats why i also want to add powers section . Please Reply Me
::ThankYou Pratham31sinha (talk) 05:57, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
:::It needs to be a good edit and made without AI, following the Wikipedia:Manual of Style ↗.
:::It should also be written using neutral, encyclopedic ↗ language too.
:::That can be difficult, which is why I suggested you try and learn a bit more about Wikipedia first - steps 1-3 in my post above will help you with this. Blue Sonnet (talk) 10:50, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
::::Is This Ok?
::::: She is a highly advanced humanoid robot that is created with the intention of protecting and helping humans. She is also stronger than an ordinary human being, which enables her to stop moving vehicles and engage in combat with multiple enemies at once. She is also fast-moving. She is able to respond quickly due to her reflexes and agility, which is highly effective in situations where there is high pressure, especially in close combat situations. She is also effective in situations where there is high pressure since she is able to deal with danger in an effective manner. She is created with the primary intention of protecting and helping humans. She is independent in the execution of her role but is also able to improve with time.
::::Pratham31sinha (talk) 05:48, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::Please reply me Pratham31sinha (talk) 14:44, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::{{ping|Pratham31sinha}} What reliable ↗, secondary sources ↗ do you have that supports this material? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Yep, @Pratham31sinha remember that every statement needs a source to back it up - that way, the reader can check that the article says the right thing and can find out more if they want.
:::::::For example, your first sentence would need a reliable source to back up the claim that she's been created to protect humans. You would probably need another to verify that she can stop moving vehicles or fight multiple enemies at once - if you claim something, you need a reliable source to back that claim up.
:::::::You can't use just any website or book as a source either, the source has to match the qualities of a Wikipedia "reliable source" - click on the blue text in Hammersoft's post above to find out more about what that means.
:::::::Wikipedia editing can be complicated, which is why I suggested that you try to learn a bit more about it first. The Wikipedia Adventure is a really good place to start learning. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:28, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::see i dont find trusted sites, only jiohotstar episodes is the way to prove this sentences so i can add episodes nunber with link in refrence with each of the sentences. Also, I want to ask go to this site Bahu Hamari Rajni Kant - Wikipedia ↗ There under plot heading no evidence or prove is mentioned. Why? 😊 Pratham31sinha (talk) 06:21, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::Plot (story) sections don't always need citations - you're wanting to add ''facts about the character'', so you usually need citations for that. Blue Sonnet (talk) 06:57, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::Please tell me i have episode refrence only (JioHotstar) . Are these acceptable? Also, I want you to reply me alaways I thought you aas my guider Who helped me a lot. I am repeating my question episode refrence is acceptable? 😁😉 Pratham31sinha (talk) 10:49, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::Thanks for your confidence, I'm not very experienced with finding sources though so I think it would be a really good idea for you to talk to your mentor - this is an experienced editor who volunteered to look after new editors like yourself, and help you with any questions you have.
:::::::::::You will have been given an individual mentor when you first registered on Wikipedia, they'll be very happy to help you get started! Think of them like a teacher for Wikipedia.
:::::::::::To find your mentor:
:::::::::::*go to your homepage by clicking here ↗,
:::::::::::*look for the module labeled ''"Your mentor" ''
:::::::::::*click ''"Ask your mentor a question about editing"''
:::::::::::Click here to read more about mentors. ↗
:::::::::::You can also ask for help at the Teahouse (click here) ↗ if your mentor isn't available for any reason - this is a special discussion page where new editors can ask for help at any time, there is always someone available to give advice at the Teahouse.
:::::::::::I've taken a quick look, but Jiohotstar isn't an independent source so I'm not sure if you can use it. You would also need the Jiohotstar website to specifically say the things that your want to put in the article, so it would have to say that she can fight multiple enemies & not just show it happening, for example. We can't interpret what we see ourselves, because that would be "Original research ↗". People can easily argue over what a video is or isn't showing, so Wikipedia only shows what ''other, independent sources'' say. Imagine if the BBC wrote about Rajni & their article said "Rajni can fight multiple enemies at once". Nobody can argue that the BBC said it, the BBC is not related to the show and is very trustworthy (reliable), so we can now write that Rajni can fight multiple enemies at once.
:::::::::::The reader can trust this claim is true, because we include a link to the BBC article so they can check it for themselves.
:::::::::::Now imagine if someone wrote "Rajni has six legs" and added a link to a YouTube video from their best friend to say that is true. YouTube usually isn't reliable, because anyone can make YouTube videos - so this isn't a Reliable source ↗ for Wikipedia article and the claim can be removed.
:::::::::::We can trust the claim with the BBC source much more than the claim with the YouTube source.
:::::::::::That's why we always need a reliable source when a definite claim or statement is made, otherwise people could write anything they liked and we'd end up arguing all the time over it.
:::::::::::Arguing does happen though, so if someone undoes your edit the first thing to do is go to the article Talk page and try to understand why it happened. Then everyone talks things through and we all decide what should happen next - this is called Consensus. Blue Sonnet (talk) 11:39, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::Thank You you had helped me a lot. 😊 Pratham31sinha (talk) 12:28, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::See JioHotstar (Disney+ Hotstar). It is a legal website, as shown on Disney+ Hotstar - Wikipedia, where official web series and movies are uploaded. No third-party content is uploaded there.
:::::::::::::I was explaining that this is the platform where the Rajni serial was telecast in 2016, and till now the episodes are listed there. If I write that she can fight with many people, then in the reference I will add the link of the episode where she is shown fighting with five enemies. If I write that she can extend her arms, then I will add the episode link where she extends her arms.
:::::::::::::Is this acceptable? Pratham31sinha (talk) 12:52, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::And there is no written source available only episodes where she had fight with enemies only this is available like whatever comes in tv after few hours in form of episodes it saved to jiohotstar and there will no person will claim that she fight i will give link of episodes when she had done fighting with time. And i want to discuss will you only because my mentor is little angry type person. please reply me. and read my above concern. 🥲 Pratham31sinha (talk) 13:30, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
{{od}} {{ping|Pratham31sinha}} If there's no source to support it, other than doing original research ↗ on the various episodes, then it has no business being here. I think what you are wanting is a fan-wiki, which I think you've been pointed to before. Respectfully, this project is an encyclopedia, not a repository of fan fiction details (there's nothing wrong with fan fiction details; it just doesn't belong here). --Hammersoft (talk) 23:23, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

:I have to agree, a lot of this information would be better suited to a Fandom ↗ wiki. English Wikipedia can only have a very basic overview of the show and can't go into the amount of detail you want, especially if there aren't any reliable, independent sources to back that up.

:Fandom wikis are wikis that ''anyone'' can make about almost anything they want, they don't have strict rules and you can go into as much detail as you want! You can have a page for every character, one for Rajni's powers, one for each episode - you decide what goes where!

:There doesn't appear to be a Fandom wiki for Bahu Hamari Rajni Kant right now so you can start it yourself - here are some links and videos to help you:
:*https://support.fandom.com/hc/en-us/articles/360021621453-How-do-I-create-a-wiki
:*https://community.fandom.com/wiki/Help:Start_a_new_community
:*https://youtube.com/watch?v=EGg9SmfGUcc
:*https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Pj6UlgJUOy0

:Once you've created the wiki, other fans will come along to help you make it bigger and better - you'll be in charge because you created it, so you will be able to help other editors if you want (or just leave them to it).
:Blue Sonnet (talk) 04:56, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
::thank you see i have created please visit 🥹
::Rajni (Bahu Hamari Rajni Kant)/Abilities Wiki | Fandom ↗ Pratham31sinha (talk) 08:36, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
:::Great start, now you can build it up and make it into a full encyclopedia about the show! Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:22, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
::see i had edited this also Bahu Hamari Rajni Kant — Grokipedia ↗ Pratham31sinha (talk) 08:37, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
:::ThankYou you are like my teacher okay? Also you are friendly type teacher not like others so i am asking question again please can u add little powers to Bahu Hamari Rajni Kant - Wikipedia ↗ little please 🥹 please little help add only these lines
:::She is a highly advanced humanoid robot that is created with the intention of protecting and helping humans. She is also stronger than an ordinary human being, which enables her to stop moving vehicles and engage in combat with multiple enemies at once. She is also fast-moving. She is able to respond quickly due to her reflexes and agility, which is highly effective in situations where there is high pressure, especially in close combat situations. She is also effective in situations where there is high pressure since she is able to deal with danger in an effective manner.
:::She is created with the primary intention of protecting and helping humans. She is independent in the execution of her role but is also able to improve with time.
:::my mentor is also good but he said we dont have to go in that depth .
:::See my point is if this character Chitti (character) - Wikipedia ↗ can have powers and abilities without having proof they had written what was shown in movie i am telling about power and ability section . then why i can edit i am giving link of episode only where you can go and check evidence this is only my point
:::ThankYou
:::You dont take this that i am arguing i am only asking from u why he can and i cant 😊🥹🥲😎 Pratham31sinha (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
::::I'm really sorry, I can't add it if there isn't a reliable source to back it up, but I promise I'll update the article if I ever find one in the future and I think it's an improvement, ok? Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:05, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::okay than you u had helped me a lot 😊🥹 Pratham31sinha (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::Glad to hear it, I'll look forward to seeing your own Wiki develop over time! Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::::See I will talk with you daily okay? By the way I am 14 years old boy. We will like friends talk with you daily, Okay? In whole editors of wikipedia I like you because you had explained why this can this cant Thank You once again.
:::::::You know hindi if yes then good but if no then also good plzz go in Rajni (Bahu Hamari Rajni Kant)/Abilities Wiki | Fandom ↗
:::::::Here scroll down and see videos only 5 min video plzz at the last section power and ambition in that video rajni fight with gangs the quality of video is little poor because only 10mb video i can upload thats why plzz see there are only 5 videos 😊😁😉 Pratham31sinha (talk) 05:54, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::::see if u want full hd one then
::::::::https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bdHfq_3pBfm8secl325q4tf2sXE945ol/view?usp=sharing
::::::::https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qkLRe7DHRZafddT06-GbpbiheXjIIg1Z/view?usp=sharing
::::::::https://drive.google.com/file/d/19ey5jFF7lUWfDxKAkJ8Jv3JNh62mJEcB/view?usp=sharing Pratham31sinha (talk) 06:06, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::Hi again, these Talk pages are only allowed to be used for talking about Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:OWNTALK ↗.
:::::::::I would be breaking the rules if I used it to chat every day, so I'm really sorry about that.
:::::::::I don't know much about the series, but I'll try to watch it if it's ever available in my country. Blue Sonnet (talk) 10:17, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::okay but try to see only these videos
::::::::::: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bdHfq_3pBfm8secl325q4tf2sXE945ol/view?usp=sharing
::::::::::: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qkLRe7DHRZafddT06-GbpbiheXjIIg1Z/view?usp=sharing
::::::::::: https://drive.google.com/file/d/19ey5jFF7lUWfDxKAkJ8Jv3JNh62mJEcB/view?usp=sharing this is available for any person u can see this it is available only 3 videos plzz see it okay 😊
::::::::::Pratham31sinha (talk) 10:25, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::I found some websites where other fans of the show talk to each other, you might have fun and make new friends there? Try https://www.reddit.com/r/IndianTellyTalk/
:::::::::::Reddit is the most active, here's a post from a fan who wants to talk to other fans like you: https://www.reddit.com/r/IndianTellyTalk/comments/1o08pi0/bahu_hamari_rajnikant_can_we_ever_get_season_2/
:::::::::::There are also Indian forums but I can't add a link since it's blacklisted here. I'm sure you can find it if you Google, but Reddit is probably most active and easy to use 🙂 Blue Sonnet (talk) 10:31, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::Thank you so much for all your help and guidance! 😊 You really explained everything clearly, like a friendly teacher, and I learned a lot from you.
::::::::::::I’ll continue working on my own wiki and also check out Reddit to talk with other fans. If I need any help in the future, I’ll come back and ask here.
::::::::::::Thanks again for being so kind and supportive!
::::::::::::Thankyou thankyou Pratham31sinha (talk) 10:44, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Glad to help! Don't forget the Wikipedia:Teahouse ↗, there are lots of friendly volunteers like myself there. You can also read this page ↗, which might be useful for you - have a great day! Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

{| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 100px ↗
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Civility Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | I see I'm not the first person to have this idea, but I still wanted to add my voice to the choir that's singing your praises :)

I don't think it's that rare for someone to take a small-'c' conservative approach to sanctions in the user-conduct process – but in my experience, that approach usually comes from the older, rougher internet, with fewer rules and more of a hostility to that kind of community moderation. It's a libertarian spirit, more than anything.

You, I think, are one of the only people I've come across who takes a conservative approach to the user-conduct process out of a sense of sheer, unadulterated compassion. You're willing to give people a second chance when no one else would suggest it, and it always comes from such a genuine, warm place of patience and kindness; in every conversation you join, your belief in people shines through. I've never seen anything like it.

I can't say I'm all that similar to you in that way, but I really, genuinely look up to you. You set a fantastic example of how Wikipedians should treat each other, even (especially) the ones who are making mistakes. I wish we had a hundred more editors like you – keep doing what you're doing :) theleekycauldron ↗ (talk • she/her) 00:50, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
|}

:Wow, that's lovely to read, thank you so much! I sometimes worry that I overstep into admin territory, but you guys are so busy that I know you don't have time to hand-hold every editor who has trouble.
:If I can help prevent a block or ban because the editor needed another peer to give them a bit of advice, then I'm definitely going to do that 🙂
:If they're not well-meaning, it'll become clear after a few posts and they've been given every possible chance to change.
:It's so easy to pile-on at noticeboards because diffs of poor editing can hide a genuine, well-meaning editor who just needs a bit of guidance. Drama is more interesting, after all...
:The best part of Wikipedia for me is seeing a thread closed because no sanctions are needed - admins don't need to do anything, we get to keep another editor and everyone's happy! Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

1 April 2026

<div style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid var(--border-color-base, #a2ab91); background-color: var(--background-color-warning-subtle, #fef6e7); color:inherit; min-height: 40px">
{{{image}}}|Barnstar.svg}}|40px|left ↗ {{#ifeq:|yes|Anonymous users from this IP address|You}} have been '''given {{#if:|{{{award}}}|{{a or an|{{#if:|{{{type}}}|barnstar ↗}}}}}}''' {{#if:|{{{for}}}|for}} {{#if:|{{{reason}}}|persistent constructive editing}}. Once the {{#if:|{{{type}}}|barnstar}} {{#ifeq:|yes|have|has}} expired, you are welcome to continue making useful contributions ↗.<div style="margin-left:45px">If you believe that there are no good reasons for receiving {{#ifeq:|yes|{{#if:|{{{type}}}|barnstar}}|{{a or an|{{#if:|{{{type}}}|barnstar}}}}}}, please review {{#ifeq:||Wikipedia's list of barnstars ↗|Wikipedia:Awards ↗}}, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: <code><nowiki>{{in recognition}}</nowiki></code> 11WB (talk) 12:12, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
</div></div>

:That scared me for a minute 😁 Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
::Happy Fool's Day! (You are definitely not a fool!) 11WB (talk) 13:25, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
:::I sent an official notice to my team at work, saying I was too busy playing Baldur's Gate 3 to deal with their crap today & was also a panda (in-joke), luckily I didn't get into trouble 😁 Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
::::The founder is up at AfD ↗ and @Oshwah is running for admin ↗! Today is a big day, both online and offline! 11WB (talk) 13:36, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::Yep, one or two people weren't happy at getting notifications about that 😁 Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:50, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks

for saving me from myself several times. Often I get annoyed with another editor, but I only have to hold myself back from giving them a piece of my mind for a few minutes and you, with your seemingly infinite patience, usually turn up to tell them what I would have done but far more diplomatically. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:58, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

:Thank you for such a nice comment & the shiny!
:I know ANI should be for admins (I've been told off a couple of times for being there) but there are so many situations where the other person needs someone to basically walk them through what's actually going on because they're usually too wound up to realise. Admins just don't have time for that, they've got so much to do - I'm not great at editing but I am good at calming things down, so I'm happy to do that.
:I told myself once that I'd only post what I'd be happy for my boss to see, whilst I'm trying to get a promotion - it seems to work out well for me 😁 Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:08, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

{| style="width: 95%; height: 128px; border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | 120px ↗

|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.7em;" | '''The Barnstar of Diplomacy'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Here's a barnstar to add to your collection. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
|}

A barnstar for you!

Accuracy and NPOV Tag regarding Alfredo Baquerizo

Hi @Blue-Sonnet, I noticed your recent changes and the NPOV tag. While I understand the goal of keeping articles neutral, I have some concerns regarding the removal of historical context and the introduction of factual errors. As respectful as I can be, it seems that little research was done into this individual when you began editing, evidenced by some blatant factual errors, and a lack of understanding of the fact that of hundreds of publicly available sources on Alfredo Baquerizo Moreno, not one fails to dignify him as a statesman who was respected by even the most revered of his political opponents, for his oratory and virtue. If you don't trust the words of Ecuador's most prolific historians, or the words of respected commentators at his time in history, then I point you towards multi-hundred page documents which are publicly available on the internet, containing scans of his telegrams and speeches, in which he personally grants amnesty to those who have wronged him in the most unimaginable ways, and accepts award after award for his master statesmanship.

'''1. Factual Error in the Election Section:''' In your recent edit, the text now implies Baquerizo was the "other liberal candidate" in the election mentioned. This is historically incorrect. Baquerizo was not a candidate in that specific cycle; the "other" candidate was Alberto Guerrero Martínez. You must revert this part to ensure historical accuracy, as the current version is misleading to readers.

'''2. Literary and Oratorical Reputation:''' The descriptions of Baquerizo as a "master orator" and the notes on his "ironic poetry" aren't puffery: they are his primary historical legacy in Ecuador. He is famously known as the "President Gentleman". These are not just compliments; they are the specific historical traits for which he is studied in Ecuadorian schools, as the only individual of his kind to act in such a way during a period of such volatility and violence (another comment you deleted, which has much value considering that there were 24 changes in power, multiple violent coups and revolutions, three assassinations of presidents, 40 revolts and 20 constitutions in the period surrounding his peaceful rule).

I am happy to re-word these sections to be more "encyclopedic" (e.g., "He was widely regarded by contemporary critics as a master orator") and I can provide specific citations from Ecuadorian historians like Enrique Ayala Mora, Ecuadorian archivists like Rodolfo Perez Pimentel, and other sources from across history and the archives to back this up.

'''3. Regarding the NPOV Tag:''' I’d like to work with you to remove the tag. If we attribute the praise to specific historians or literary critics rather than stating them as absolute truths, would that satisfy the neutrality requirements? Furthermore, you seem to have deleted lots of content under the banner of NPOV, yet have left this tag on the page.

I would be pleased to collaborate with yourself, yet I please implore you to research deeply into this individual before making such edits on his page.

Many thanks, and in no way do I intent to spark any hostility,

Jorge EcuadorianPenguin (talk) 19:12, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

:Hi @EcuadorianPenguin, thank you for your message, please allow me to explain that Wikipedia is not here to "dignify" any article subject - specific sources may do this, but Wikipedia itself cannot.
:We may include limited quotations that exemplify the subject but we can't make any of those claims in Wikipedia's own voice (some were unsourced).
:Wikipedia:IMPARTIAL ↗ explains that: {{tq|The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view.}}
:The article had many phrases that are noted in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch ↗ (specifically MOS:PUFFERY ↗) which made the article as a whole feel like a glowing endorsement of the subject and I felt had to be removed, but the number of them did make it difficult to rewrite neutrally so I apologise for any errors.
:As an aside, if you are using AI/LLM's to write for you, please be aware that this is against the WP:NEWLLM ↗ guideline as they tend to include inappropriate promotional & non-neutral phrases such as the ones found throughout the article.
:You are very welcome to correct any errors you feel were caused by my edits, but I ask that you please avoid the use of AI/LLM's (if you are using them) and keep your edits as neutral as possible, bearing in mind the Manual of style I linked to above and the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view ↗ policy also. Many thanks for your time and letting me know about this. Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Analogies in arguments

Almost never helpful ↗ in an argument where you're trying to persuade someone to see your side. They will almost inevitably focus on the differences ↗. Analogies are helpful when the person you're talking to is basically in agreement with you but needs a simplification in order to visualize. Valereee (talk) 22:17, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

:Yeah, I noticed it confused things unnecessarily in this case so I've made sure to avoid using similar analogies in any subsequent discussions - I noticed someone else use a similar argument to explain their point & thought it might be useful, but this one definitely got away from me!
:I'm usually quite good at explanations, but I just made it too complicated like you said.
:I'll definitely be sticking to what I know works well for me going forwards, especially when the underlying situation is already difficult. Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:03, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Kudos for a very good response

Kudos for an excellent response here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Danield2727&diff=prev&oldid=1347784328 ↗. I try to include new editors, but sometimes I respond by being the bad cop. I appreciate your good cop response. Despite the despicable desecration of Wikipedia, there may be a new editor to salvage and nourish. ''signed'', Willondon (talk ↗) 22:53, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

:Thank you! For some reason there's been a lot of new editors who are very young, of course that means they make mistakes more often and find it harder to deal with criticism so they end up at ANI.
:I've been able to guide one or two back from the brink, so I've been trying different approaches with them - sometimes it's the shock of "ooh I changed this website, I can do whatever I want, this is ''awesome!''" and they don't realise how much it'll screw things up for themselves in the future.
:Kids don't have a lot of power or control, so I can see why they'd be attracted to vandalisation.
:Edits that stay put long-term will give them ''more'' control over Wikipedia - I'm hoping that concept might click with vandals more than "stop it, you're being bad", which they've probably heard a ton if they're messing about here.
:If this approach doesn't work then at least we've tried! Blue Sonnet (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

::Yes. That's exactly what I appreciated about your response. Cheers. ''signed'', Willondon (talk ↗) 00:38, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
:::Just realised I explained the obvious - whoops 😅 Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:33, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Barnstar

{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | {{#ifeq:alt|alt|100px ↗|100px ↗}}
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Helping Hand Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For being so patient and kind where others, including me, have banged their fists on the table demanding harsh santions. 18:13, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
|} 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 Peep peep! 18:13, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

:Thank you so much! There are times where a slightly-lesser sanction (or just double-checking something first) can completely change the outcome of a dispute, I'm really happy when we can achieve that 🙂
:There are other cases where there's just no prospect of anything other than an indef (like the ANI thread I opened recently), but at least in that case we've done literally all we can to try to avoid it. Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:21, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Have a Southern Mountain Cavy!

A barnstar for you!

Hi heres a cookie for you <3

{| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);"
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 120px ↗
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" |
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | 150px ↗
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''Cookies!'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" |

for explaining copyright law to me with infinite patience and also i ate your cookie before sorry

Alice Nicole Smith has given you some cookie ↗s! Cookies promote WikiLove ↗ and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{tls|Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{tls|munch}}!
|} Alice Nicole Smith (talk) 21:46, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
|}

:Glad to help! I was trying to figure out how to move your first post here from my userpage but I'm on mobile so it took a while 😅 Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:50, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
::loves it!!! pls treat urself to an irl cookie Alice Nicole Smith (talk) 22:05, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
:::I will, right after I finish this ice cream 😁 Blue Sonnet (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
::::DELICIOUS Alice Nicole Smith (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Have you considered taking up a mop?

<table role="presentation" style="background-color:#fcffdd; width:100%; border:3px solid #fceb92; margin:1em auto 1em auto">
<tr>
<td style="vertical-align:middle; padding:1px">90px ↗</td>
<td style="vertical-align:middle; padding:1px; text-align:center">Category:Administrators without tools ↗'''You are a remarkable editor in many ways.''' I think you would be a good administrator, and you appear to be well qualified. You personify an '''''administrator without tools ↗''''' and have gained my support already! {{pb}}''Interested in becoming an administrator ↗? Check out some RfA advice ↗, or ask a nominator ↗ about next steps!'' </td></tr>
</table> i struggle to describe what makes you an administrator without tools, so i'm going to be lazy and nick something from your userpage:
{{tqb|This user is not an administrator but sometimes seeing her excellent works and persuasive arguments you may confuse her as an admin.}}
on an unrelated note, WP:AELECT4 ↗ is coming up... ;) ltbdl ↗ (smile ↗) 03:02, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

:Thank you, that's really nice to say!
:Someone's asked me the question before, but I don't have much experience with editing articles themselves & I haven't seen an admin with less than 10,000 edits.
:I might consider it in future, but they do tend to look at editing experience in elections so I know I wouldn't get very far as I am right now. Blue Sonnet (talk) 06:51, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
:: In terms of edit count, the lowest we've had in recent years was around 7700, and 8,000-9,000 is not unheard of. I'm sure there's a lot of admins (and other editors) who would like to collaborate with you on writing a GA if that brings you closer to the tools. Does editing content attract you at all? Having a GA under the belt is definitely the easiest way to pass at AELECT/RfA, but there are other routes. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
:::Honestly I'd really like to - the main thing that's been stopping me is all the bugs when editing on mobile. There's nothing worse than writing a ton of stuff, then realising visual editor has "hiccuped" and turned half of it into gibberish! It's the strangest thing, but it's followed me across phones so it seems to be related to the website rather than my phone itself.
:::That said, I've got a work laptop & I can probably get away with using that for larger edits, they have got monitoring software on but I reckon they'd overlook Wikipedia editing ^_^
:::Either way, working on a decent article would be fun, whether I go for the mop or not!
:::I've also noticed that RFA's sometimes focus on AFD history, I'm not 100% sure of mine in that area. RFA's can be a little brutal! Blue Sonnet (talk) 07:39, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
::::Just for interest (I've not looked into it), your AFD history can be found at https://afdstats.toolforge.org/afdstats.py?name=Blue-Sonnet -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::It's a pity that 'The remaining 27 pages had no discernible vote by this user.' doesn't capture Blue-Sonnet's excellent sock-strike work on those pages protecting the integrity of the process. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::Heheh, not surprised now I think about it - 97%† of those were probably down to one LTA! He definitely doesn't understand how AFD's work, so leaving his votes to stand (vague as they are) wouldn't be fair to the legitimate voters. 90% match rate on AFD's is higher than I thought, though!
::::::†Yes that's a scientific analysis, no I'm not telling anyone how I calculated it. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Regarding 'they do tend to look at...', I'm not sure it is worth trying to predict what people will pay attention to. For example, when 'Have you considered taking up a mop?' appeared on my watchlist, for a moment I thought it said, 'Have you considered taking a nap?' and thought, rude, seems a bit uncalled for. And people like me are part of the electorate, so, you know, the whole thing is probably a bit unpredictable... Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::::...and brutal sometimes, I've had a look through a few of the past ones and all sorts of stuff gets dug up! You're right that it's hard to guess where it'll go sometimes. Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::About the brutality: it is still a risk, but there's ways to mitigate it. One is having good nominators (and I'm sure you will have your pick when time comes). A good nominator will dig through your contributions. If there's anything you or they see that might make the RfA contentious, you can strategise in advance how to tackle related questions, or sometimes wait a bit longer to put some distance between an incident and the RfA. Content creation is another: !voters love seeing it, and possibly put too much stock in it compared to other areas of expertise. Furthermore, there is the introduction of monitors, who have the power to delete unfair questions and comments. I believe that has made the RfA experience more friendly over the last 2 years. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:59, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::Ooh that's good to hear!
::::::::::If you think about it, administration is more about the people than the content. It's like a manager in an office, they don't really need to know the intricacies of their subordinates job, they're primarily concerned with making sure they can ''do'' the job in the first place!
::::::::::I'm not sure how accurate that analogy is, but it seems at least partially accurate...
::::::::::I know I'm good at dispute resolution, detecting and cleaning up after disruption, which is a lot of what I see admins doing. I'm sure there's much more to it that I'm not aware of and I definitely don't want to jump into it with unrealistic expectations either. I know someone will pick up on my lack of content creation so I'll try to bolster that before the next RFA, it's also a really good idea to someone to review my history & see what I need to work on - there will be something that a more experienced pair of eyes will find that I hadn't thought of! Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::::{{tps}} {{tq|Have you considered taking a nap? And thought, rude, seems a bit uncalled for}} sounds more like a wikilove message to me! I could always use a good nap. ~ oklopfer (💬) 04:54, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
::::The general wisdom is to have 2 or 3 areas of experience in terms of admin-related areas. In addition to your work at unblocks, this can be AfD (and on the surface you seem to be starting a good record there), but it doesn't have to be. In Kudpungs old extended list of criteria, their advice was participation in a minimum of 50 discussions. If you prefer other areas, that's a valid route as well. If you browse last AELECT, I think you'll find that there were people passing without too much AfD experience. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:10, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::That's good to know, I spend a lot of time at ANI but that's often in the context of blocks so it's not really diversifying much!
:::::I think I'll probably keep a close eye on this next one and see what sort of things people want from an admin, then take that as a starting point - thanks for all your help and advice! Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:20, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::For AELECT5 or beyond, if you're interested, let me or another existing admin know via email/Discord and we can do a bit of digging on your editing history if you'd like, plus WP:ORCP ↗ is always an option but there are pros and cons to that. I suspect it would be an easier "sell" once you're past 10k edits though personally. More content creation would also definitely help, but that's not something I personally ever do on a mobile device! -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::::10k is definitely the figure I had in mind too! I know some admins got away with less, but if I'm going to do this I'll do it to the best of my ability 😁 Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:11, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Also thanks again for everyone who's given me advice, you're all brilliant x Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::::The only other thing I'd note is you may want to look into advanced permissions at WP:PERM ↗ to demonstrate you can use some of the tools. Pending changes reviewer is a relatively "easy" one and New Page Reviewer requires a larger amount of experience. They need to be permissions you'll actually use though, rather than to WP:HATCOLLECT ↗. Happy to discuss though, and there's no rush for anything. :-) -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:28, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::I've recently got TAIV & pending changes is a good idea - thank you! Blue Sonnet (talk) 22:51, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
:Seconding this, for the record. Leeky's barnstar award message above is one that I wholeheartedly agree with. Keep up your good work. Best, Staraction (talk · contribs ↗) 20:20, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
::Thank you, they means a lot! I guess my actions once I hit 10k are pretty much set 😁 Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
:::Reply to @Kj cheetham: I don't personally think an ORCP is needed, as @Blue Sonnet has received two AWOTs which has led to pretty much the same sort of discussion that would happen there. 11WB (talk) 04:00, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

{{Administrator without tools|example=yes|nosubst=yes}}Hello @Blue-Sonnet, I know others have already encouraged you to consider adminship, and I just wanted to add my support as well. You clearly show many qualities editors look for in administrators, especially your kindness, your ability to understand other editors’ perspectives, and the ability to handle difficult situations. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
:Wow another one - thank you! I'd probably go for it now if I thought I had a solid chance, but there are some gaps in my knowledge that I'd like to plug first. I'll keep a close eye on this race so I understand what people are looking for, and consider running next time when I've hit 7-10k edits (I think some people might worry about an admin with 5k) ☺️ Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
::That’s completely fair. But, I don’t think your edit count would be a huge concern for many, and you already show the qualities editors look for in admins, so I do believe that you have a solid chance. It does make sense to wait until you feel fully ready and confident. I am sure that many editors. Personally, I think many editors would be supportive if you did decide to run now, but of course it’s entirely your decision. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
:::Honestly, there's a giant part of me that wants to do it & see what happens!
:::After reviewing things with a few people above, I think I'm going to take on Pending Changes & build up some skills outside today I have already. I also don't have a PC (thanks, AI) so I'm going to start using my work laptop some more - it's got tracking software on so I'm going to check up on that first!
:::Honestly though, it's lovely seeing so many people think I can do it in the first place. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
::::Haven't read the AWOT discussions yet. @Blue-Sonnet, I'd be willing to collaborate with you on an article. That's my main area. I actually edit articles more on mobile now than I do the PC, as desktop mode is quite good for zooming on specific parts of a page.
::::Your activity, which is primarily at AN/I and UNBLOCK could end up with an RfA similar to Liz's ↗. Article creation, even a small amount, would be a tremendous knock to anyone thinking of opposing on those grounds. Plus, a collaboration, which is what Wikipedia is built around, looks good anyway! 11WB (talk) 03:52, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::Just read this reply ↗ from @Femke. They are 100% correct. Even 1 GA would be enough, a collaborative GA and you're laughing! Let me know if you're interested. If you go with another editor or decide to take it on solo, I wish you all the best with it! 11WB (talk) 03:57, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::I'll probably take you up on that, thanks! Just trying to find out how much editing I can get away with on the work laptop, which would make it ''much'' easier - it's got some basic monitoring software so I'm gonna play it safe until I know what's allowed. Unfortunately, mobile anything is glitchy as anything, even in desktop view so I often lose half my text when I'm in the middle of typing it 😑 Blue-Sonnet 09:31, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Hey, If you ever want to write an article, I would love to work together. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 10:47, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::::Thanks so much, I'll keep this saved for when I'm ready! Blue-Sonnet 13:34, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::Sure TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 13:42, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
:Came here to say the same thing. Your noticeboard participation is very constructive. Fences&Windows 17:47, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
::Hear, hear! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
:::I love how the title even includes a number and even then it's still a 2-month-old thread. 海盐沙冰 / aka irisChronomia / Talk 18:30, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
:::Thank you both! The answer is still yes - I'm just building up my editing history first, because there's a much better chance of success after 10k edits 😁 ''In solidarity'' ↗, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 19:52, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
::::I also just noticed I've been added to :Category:Administrators without tools ↗, I never even noticed that 😅 ''In solidarity'' ↗, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 19:56, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

right|130px ↗
Hello. Your account has been granted the "{{mono|pending changes reviewer}}" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits ↗ on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges ↗, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages ↗.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

''See also:''

Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes ↗, the guideline on reviewing

Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes#Requirements to accept an edit ↗, when to accept an edit

—Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:01, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

:Ooh proactive - thank you! I'll get started on this as soon as I can! Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

A goat for you!

left|150px ↗
Goats are papyrivores, and this animal may eat an article that you have reasonably nominated for eating.

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:02, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
 

:Thank you, I hope the goat is happy with my offering! Blue-Sonnet 20:13, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Request for review of tagged issues

Hi @Blue-Sonnet

I have since reviewed the article and made substantial revisions to address them, including removing promotional or non-encyclopedic wording and ensuring the content aligns with Wikipedia’s neutrality and sourcing standards.

I would appreciate it if you could take another look and advise if there are any remaining sections that still need improvement, particularly regarding neutrality or tone.

Thank you. --BusyEditor (talk) 09:21, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

AN 2

Hi Blue Sonnet, it might not have been your intention but you're starting an unblock discussion at AN. As I won't agree to an unblock, that is only possible through a consensus for unblocking found through a discussion at AN lasting at least 72 hours (cf. WP:CBAN ↗, which the block becomes if not undone through such a discussion). As long as noone has replied yet, may I kindly request for that not to happen as long as you don't view the block as abusive or generally invalid? You're highly unlikely to do the user an actual favor by proposing to let them continue on an unhealthy path without pause. As long as noone has replied yet, you can still revert your comment. Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

:Shoot, I didn't realise it came across that way - I'll strike or remove it now Blue-Sonnet 16:00, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
:Rephrased to show what I actually meant to say - thanks for letting me know! Blue-Sonnet 16:04, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
::Oh! I've had a look at the new wording and see I had misunderstood the idea. Thank you very much, it's much clearer now! Then we're even completely in agreement. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
:::Definitely! Really sorry for the confusion, my original reply did read like it was a block appeal - I deal with so many that's where my brain went by default 😅 Blue-Sonnet 16:14, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | 100px ↗
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Barnstar of Integrity'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | You have continually been the voice of reason in many heated areas of the project. I am always impressed and slightly relieved when I see a comment or reply from you, as it's always level-headed and to the benefit of the editor in question. Thank you for upholding the highest level of integrity! 11WB (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
|}

:That's really kind to say, thank you so much! Blue-Sonnet 14:22, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
::No problem! By the way, this is actually a barnstar also ↗! 11WB (talk) 14:28, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
:::I remember, that freaked me out for a minute 😅 I've just deleted some barnstars/awards a couple of hours ago - they were given in good faith but I hadn't earned them & it didn't feel right to keep them on. Blue-Sonnet 14:41, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
::::Oh.. barnstars are given when an editor feels another editor has gone above and beyond, usually in a positive way. It's up to you whether or not you archive them, but there is never any need to feel guilt for doing something positive! 11WB (talk) 14:55, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::The editor who sent the last two was sending them to people at random - I've explained that they're really special awards that should be tailored specially for that editor, that way they're meaningful & important.
:::::I absolutely treasure every one I've received, that's why I've saved them! Each one is a person's life who was made a tiny bit better because of something I'd done, but being given them for the sake of it felt a bit disingenuous.
:::::I think I managed to explain things properly to the editor & hopefully they'll work hard at handing out good barnstars going forwards 😁
:::::Now I've just got to remember to hand the darn things out myself, I keep forgetting! Blue-Sonnet 15:07, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

You comment at block requests?

I've seen that you said you comment at block requests. Is there anything required to comment there so to speak? I'd like to branch out from just doing counter-vandalism and recent changes patrol, and dip into some other waters. TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs ↗) 14:50, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

:Hiya! Honestly I just blundered in one day & stayed... It's really rewarding being able to help an editor get through a difficult appeal and out the other side.
:Make sure you use the {{non-administrator comment}} template so they don't confuse you for an admin & start with easy stuff, e.g. direct then to WP:GAB ↗, that appeals should explain what led to a block to show an understanding of the problem, then explain what they should/shouldn't have done instead.
:LLM appeals are obvious once you've seen a few - "I understand the concerns, my intent was, in future I will ensure, thank you for your consideration"
:Avoid sockpuppet/CU ones until you get your confidence, they're far too easy to accidentally mess up (found that out the hard way!)
:Oh, and if you write a really good explanation for e.g. COI, AI, disruptive blocks, save it so you can cut and paste it quickly.
:Also, if no-one has touched an appeal in a while it's best to leave it alone since admins put idle timestamps on them - it's usually best to get in early to get the support obvious stuff out of the way, that way admins can just read through what's there and make a decision.
:There's a page showing the outstanding appeals that I like using - I'll try to grab a link for you as soon as I find the darn thing! Blue-Sonnet 15:18, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
:Got it! :Category:Requests for unblock ↗, I also have this bespoke search ↗ that shows recent changes - that's really helpful to see whether an editor has recently responded & needs further questioning/guidance. Blue-Sonnet 15:24, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

message?

It seems that you were trying to leave me a message, but then it got reverted. Any reason why? --signed, '''TheA'''urora'''B'''orealis 17:56, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

:Yup, I got something wrong & needed to fix it - I hadn't seen block templates with a signature so thought they didn't have them. Then I checked and they ''do'' have them, but within the template itself - I've reinstated your edit by moving the unsigned tag within the template. Sorry for the confusion! Blue-Sonnet 18:00, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
::No worries, thanks for explaining! --signed, '''TheA'''urora'''B'''orealis 18:05, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
:::No problem! I was going to leave an explanatory message since you'd see the notification & wonder what happened, but I thought I'd better fix the template first and make sure the edit history was corrected 😊 Blue-Sonnet 18:11, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

NPP granted

right|80px ↗
Hi Blue-Sonnet. Your account has been added to the "<code>New page reviewers</code>" user group for a period of three months after which you can submit a new request for permanent use of the right. This right allows you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled ↗, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the '''New Pages Feed''' ↗. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you '''must''' read the new tutorial at New Pages Review ↗, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy ↗. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the '''new page reviewer talk page''' ↗. In addition, please remember:

Be nice to new editors ↗. They are usually ↗ not aware that they are doing anything wrong.

You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.

If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.

Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right may be revoked by an administrator. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:06, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you

{{tqb|Re. the recommendation to do something other than templates and categories (two things I've personally never edited) - find a subject you're interested in and join the associated Wikiproject. You'll find other editors who are interested in the same topic as well as articles in need of fixing. There are also projects for different types of edits (e.g. copy editing, stub expansion), but I'd recommend looking at an entire subject so you get the widest variety of editing experience. There's everything from amphibians to volcanoes, so I'm sure you'll find something interesting to work on! Blue-Sonnet 05:19, 7 May 2026 (UTC)}}

Thank you. Can you help me find some useful things to do?

I'm already trying to work on some articles, but I'm finding the other editor's messages distract me from that. So it might work better to talk to you on your page if that is ok?

I get the impression from a few people that I should also do some more useful things that need doing, not only the bits I find most interesting? I don't think I'd be very good at copy-editing. Is there a list somewhere of other tasks that need doing, where I can find some ways to be helpful?

Or is there a list of "types of edits" projects? "Types of edit" projects sound like a good place to look for new things to work on, because a wide variety of topics is interesting even if they're not topics I usually find very interesting. Also, the types of edit I found most interesting are things I should avoid, so a different type of edit to focus on sounds like a good idea. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 10:10, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

:Of course, that's totally fine! Two ideas come to mind straight away:
:*Wikipedia:Task Center ↗ - a homepage to give you ideas of different things you can do, including a randomiser so you can choose an overall task then get a random article that needs the same task completing.
:*Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red ↗ - an ongoing project to get more articles about women into Wikipedia. The ratio of men/women is way off right now, so there's currently a big drive to get that resolved. They will be BLP ↗ articles, those have stricter criteria so make sure you read up on it a bit before starting.
:Do those sound like a good place to start looking? Blue-Sonnet 10:24, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
::Fact checking in the Task center might be a good place to start? Blue-Sonnet 10:28, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
:::Thank you. A few things in the task list look appealing. For the biographies, should I add {{tl|default sort}} or is that too close to categories? I saw a redirect yesterday listed by someone's first name, I nearly fixed it, trying to help, then worried I'd get in trouble? Late Night Coffee (ping me) 09:40, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
::::Maybe play it safe for now and avoid anything that looks like a category - TBANS are usually "broadly construed" which means anything related to them. If it means you have difficulty doing anything, let me know and I'll ask an admin for advice. Blue-Sonnet 09:53, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::Thanks. I'll leave the default sort alone then, or make an edit request.
:::::It was clarified as a namespace ban only, not a topic ban. I was specifically told by the blocking admin that category talk pages and category discussions are allowed, but advised to be extra careful.
:::::I don't think I am forbidden as such from adding pages to categories, but I think SMG would consider it disruptive, so I'm not not touching that part of pages. When I see things that looked wrong I start a talk thread instead.
:::::The default sort thing was just something helpful that I know how to do, I thought it might be useful on women in red stubs, but probably counter-productive if it's likely to be controversial. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 08:29, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::I want to mostly work on articles, not categories or templates, but I find I'm getting a bit stuck in arguments with SMG. Can you help me understand this one: Talk:2015 Bagram Airfield bombing ↗. I should probably give up and ignore it, but I worry I'm missing something important that will cause trouble with other editors if I don't work out what I don't understand, and I can't work out a question to find the thing I'm missing.
:::::I checked the info page about reverts and as far as I can tell, you need a good reason to revert a page? But when I try to ask why SMG reverted all the edits, SMG just says it's a revert. Possibly an actual answer is in there somewhere and I keep skimming past it.
:::::I find it weird that SMG claims it's not about the content. That seems to be relevant to if someone can block me. ↗ I don't know if that is related to the discussion SMG insists isn't content. If the reason is not about content, then it should still be for a reason? But the only reason SMG gives is "I reverted the edit!" Late Night Coffee '''(ping me)''' 15:04, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::TBH I'm not very familiar with templates & categories, but it looks like SMG made a big chunk of reverts because the time and effort involved in checking each one was just too great. Because they were done en masse, it wasn't possible to give a detailed reason for each one.
::::::The essay Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over ↗ explains the idea behind this sort of approach - it doesn't apply exactly to this situation, but gives a good explanation of why it's sometimes better to wipe the slate clean or just have a big reset.
::::::Heya an analogy, maybe it will help (ignore it it doesn't!):
::::::Imagine if you made a huge batch of 1000 sweets in one hour, you took fifteen minutes to test 100 of them and found that 60 were bad.
::::::Would you check the remaining 900 sweets or just chuck them all and start over?
::::::What if ''someone else'' made the sweets and they've left to work in another department, and you've got twenty other orders to fill?
::::::Admins are volunteers just like we are, and they have limited time to do error a lot of stuff whilst also taking a lot of flak (I know a few and they get legal threats, death threats, all sorts of horrible stuff purely because they have a few extra tools). That means they might be more jaded or have a bit of a shorter temper, but I honestly let them have leeway on that considering the crap they have to deal with all the time. SMG is probably in the same boat. That's exactly where I come in - I know how busy they are, so I've decided to spend my time explaining things to editors who are blocked, to see if I can help clear things up and lower the chances of them having similar issues in future.
::::::I'd honestly take this on the chin and just move on. Focus on yourself and getting a good, long edit history, then in the future you can hopefully return to that area and redo each one as perfectly as possible.
::::::Learn to pick your battles - I think this is one that just isn't worth the time for either of if you. Put it on the backburner for now, you can always return to fix things in the future. Blue-Sonnet 18:01, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::::@Blue-Sonnet, Thank you. Your analogy makes perfect sense, but that's already what I thought SMG did, and SMG seemed to be saying that wasn't her reason? That's what confused me.
:::::::For the specific dispute "move on" is a very good idea. I just worried I was missing something big that would get me into trouble later. But if that's what you think she did, and what I already thought she was doing, maybe that was the reason and I just have difficulty communicating with SMG.
:::::::I think the the thing that's bothering me is she seems like she's trying to avoid saying that's what she did? Like I'm missing a very strange Wikipedia etiquette rule about which bits you are not allowed to say out loud? But maybe she thinks she made that clear and it's just the usual problem I have understanding SMG. Late Night Coffee '''(ping me)''' 13:22, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
::Do you know if it's technically possible for a namespace block to be reduced to a page creation block? SMG wanted "broadly construed" but other people only strongly wanted me to stop creating new categories and new templates.
::The 6 months that somebody mentioned seems like a very long time, so I am hoping it can be a bit reduced before that, but it's not worth attempting an unblock request if what I'm asking for is not possible. Late Night Coffee '''(ping me)''' 14:17, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
:::Hiya, the best thing to do is work really hard on having a large but impeccable editing history - in maybe four months you could perhaps find a friendly admin and ask if they think it would be a good idea to submit an appeal to have the restriction lessened. They'll hopefully look at your history and see if there's enough there to make a decision.
:::I definitely wouldn't do any less than three months, so it doesn't look like you're questioning the judgement of the admin who put the restriction on in the first place - that never goes down well (even if that wasn't your intent!) Blue-Sonnet 17:32, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
::::Also note that this is a ''big'' maybe on the four months thing - it might be considered if you've got several hundred of edits and they're all awesome, it might be rejected if there are 200 edits and you've just been adding commas.
::::It's something that's very subjective - it's too hard to predict beyond saying "it's not a good idea ''right now''". Blue-Sonnet 18:05, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Edit request

{{Tl|Australian terrorism}}

{{TextDiff
|
{{!}} list5 {{=}}

The Croatian Six (1981-1990) ↗

Faheem Khalid Lodhi (2006) ↗

Abdul Nacer Benbrika (2008) ↗

Bilal Khazal (2009) ↗

Willie Brigitte (alleged al-Qaeda) ↗

Neil Prakash (alleged ISIS) ↗

{{!}} group4 {{=}} <nowiki>{{Normalwraplink|War on terror}}</nowiki>
{{!}} list4 {{=}} child
|
{{!}} list5 {{=}}

The Croatian Six (1981-1990) ↗

Faheem Khalid Lodhi (2006) ↗

Abdul Nacer Benbrika (2008) ↗

Bilal Khazal (2009) ↗

Willie Brigitte (alleged al-Qaeda) ↗

Neil Prakash (alleged ISIS) ↗

Naveed Akram (2025) ↗

{{!}} group4 {{=}} <nowiki>{{Normalwraplink|War on terror}}</nowiki>
{{!}} list4 {{=}} child
}} Late Night Coffee '''(ping me)''' 06:09, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

:I'm asking you because you know some more of the backstory. The page was nominated for deletion so I don't know if that disqualifies it? Late Night Coffee '''(ping me)''' 06:17, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Regarding my comments on the Persian Gulf talk page

Hey there, I wanted to follow up regarding my removed comments. I agree my conduct and wording were inappropriate, and I understand why @SilverLocust removed it. That said, I do want to clarify where my suspicion came from at the time. The combination of the highly polished argumentative structure, the repetitive md formatting with bulletpoints dashes, and the fact that it came from a new account on a historically contentious topic made me suspect AI generated persuasion (in the guise of a discussion) may have been involved. I was also viewing it in the context of persistent POV disputes on the Persian Gulf article, which probably made me more reactive than I should have been.

I also noticed the same editor had made edits on another identity-related topic (Avicenna), which contributed to my caution at the time which was their only other activity on wikipedia calling for the ethnicity to be in the lead, though in hindsight I should not have treated that as meaningful evidence for the article at hand, and I recognize that prior experiences with disruptive POV editing likely biased my reaction. I clearly handled it badly here I should have just either reverted the talk page discussion if I was positive LLM/disruptive nationalist claims or perhaps flagged it at ANI? Not sure if it would warrant that.. I would rather know the proper process going forward. — '''♾️ Contemporary Nomad''' (💬 Talk ↗) 11:19, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

:Hi, thanks for coming back to me! I think the LLM part might have obfuscated the other concerns you had, you can hat obvious LLM per WP:HATGPT ↗ & then it can easily be unhatted if it's clear it wasn't AI. It also means others can read through and make their own opinion.
:I find it really helpful to refer to WP:AISIGNS ↗ and directly point out which signs I'm seeing - that's also useful for other editors. Having complex prose overall isn't definitive, neurodivergent editors can also write in a very formulaic way so it pays to be careful. If you look at this discussion ↗ a little way above yours, you can see I got it wrong too - the editor clarified that they weren't using AI (at least for that post) so I've accepted them at their word.
:I think a short post along the lines of what you've written here would go a long way - acknowledgement of what happened, short apology and try to redirect focus to any remaining POV concerns should you have any.
:If you don't think the evidence is very strong right now, I would that last part off so it doesn't look like retaliation. You can always & wait to see whether any problematic behaviour arises, at which point you might want to bring further evidence to ANI.
:Honestly, you wouldn't believe how powerful a simple "I messed up, I'm really sorry" is. Blue-Sonnet 11:48, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
::Thanks, I really do appreciate the advice. Since I wasn’t part of the original RfC, I think it makes more sense for me to step back from policing the article/talk page. — '''♾️ Contemporary Nomad''' (💬 Talk ↗) 12:40, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Diogo Sfreitas at ANI

Hi, the ANI thread about {{noping|Diogo sfreitas}} was archived but they’re continuing to edit… rather concerned that they refused to communicate throughout the thread… what best to do? Danners430 tweaks made ↗ 11:26, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

:I was a bit surprised since the mention of AI usually brings out the pitchforks on dramaboards! I'd say to watch them carefully - if there are any further problems (specifically sources not matching claims, AI tags in the sources, very clear promotional language) then start a new ANI thread and link to the previous one.
:You could technically unarchive the old thread, but it's always hard to tell whether a thread didn't get attention because the evidence wasn't strong enough or it was just because something more interesting was happening! They don't edit too often, so we may as well take this as an opportunity to wait for more evidence & build a stronger case before taking it back to ANI. Blue-Sonnet 11:37, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
::Sounds like a plan - cheers :) Danners430 tweaks made ↗ 11:38, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
:::No probs! Blue-Sonnet 11:42, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Vijaysoren

It would seem he is convinced that both you, 331dot and (probably) me are employees of Wikimedia India Trade (talk) 10:30, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

:If that's the case, I would very much like a raise! Blue-Sonnet 12:15, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
:Oh they've wiped the discussion? Guess they've got the message! Blue-Sonnet 12:52, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
::I just copy pasted the contact information to the page. Better than him continuing to use sockpuppets to keep asking for it Trade (talk) 10:41, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
:::I made a translation too. I was going to cut and paste but I was really hoping they'd read the rest of the page, which explained about legal jurisdiction & liability etc. Fingers crossed they've actually read it by now! Blue-Sonnet 14:29, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
::::I am not even sure what he is even mad about now. I literally gave him the exact contact details Trade (talk) 22:05, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::He did say some pretty nasty things about me before it was removed from the history! Unless it was a joe-job (a copycat), that's always a possibility... Blue-Sonnet 23:37, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Sorry!

I just realized I probably spammed you with messages when I was advising AutumnHornet in May 2026 on their talk page. I should have moved that discussion to a new topic, sorry about that! 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (Ping me!) 16:57, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

:It's fine, I've got their page watchlisted anyway so I didn't notice 😁 Blue-Sonnet 17:04, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
::Oh, phew! Nice job working with them, by the way; your responses were perfect. :) 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (Ping me!) 17:12, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
:::Thank you! You really helped them too - I'd prefer if they had a mentor going forwards since they can't use the Teahouse, but I've given a link to the mentor guidance page so I can't really do much else beyond that... Blue-Sonnet 17:18, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
::::I'm a mentor, but not theirs. I know claiming mentees is usually for teachers of off-wiki courses, but do you think it would be a good idea for me to claim them as my mentee, or would it be better for someone uninvolved to help them? 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (Ping me!) 17:24, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::I'm really glad you said that - the usual trick for finding someone's mentor isn't working for them ( <nowiki>{{#mentor:NAME}}</nowiki> ) so I don't think they have one?
:::::The mentor page ↗ said you can claim them using Special:ClaimMentee ↗ - they definitely want to do well, they just need support getting there. If you could claim them that'd be great! Blue-Sonnet 17:29, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::Yeah, I was confused about why that trick wasn't working as well. I'm not sure why they wouldn't have a mentor though, that's strange. Anyway, I'll go ahead and claim them. Thank you! 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (Ping me!) 17:34, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::::No problem, glad they're sorted out! I could see things going wrong for them a few days ago, so I'm really happy that they're starting to edit 🙂 Blue-Sonnet 17:36, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

New Page Patrol Newsletter - May 2026

<div style="border:2px solid #90C0FF; background:#F0F0FF; width:99%; padding:4px">

Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}},

thumb|400px|New Page Review queue November 2025 - May 2026 ↗

'''Backlog update'''

At the time of this message, there are 15,282 articles and 32,951 redirects awaiting review.

After the January–February drive the article backlog was reduced to 15,179 articles and the redirect backlog to 19,053 respectively. Great job! However, both queues are growing rapidly and any additional reviews are highly appreciated.

'''2024 and 2025 NPP Awards'''

74px|left ↗{{no ping|JTtheOG}} was selected as the NPP reviewer of the year for both 2024 and 2025, for reviewing the most articles amongst all reviewers.
{{no ping|Hey man im josh}} and {{no ping|MPGuy2824}} won the Redirect Ninja Master Award for 2024 and 2025 respectively, for reviewing the most redirects.

Overall in 2024, one Platinum, two Gold, eight Silver, 12 Bronze and 45 Iron Barnstars were awarded. Additionally, 66 reviewers got the NPP barnstar for doing more than 100 reviews through the year. In 2025, one Platinum, ten Silver, 13 Bronze and 38 Iron Barnstars were awarded. Additionally, 38 reviewers got the NPP barnstar for doing more than 100 reviews through the year.

{{no ping|BoyTheKingCanDance}}, {{no ping|Rosiestep}}, {{no ping|SunDawn}}, and {{no ping|Vanderwaalforces}} were inducted into the NPP Hall of Fame ↗ for having two separate years of 2,000+ article reviews.

'''January–February backlog drive'''

The experimental two-month long backlog drive concluded with 183 reviewers patrolling over 27,761 articles and 35,309 redirects, earning over 36,836 points. Congratulations to {{no ping|JTtheOG}}, who achieved first place with 6,484.6 points in this drive.

'''May backlog drive'''

An article-only backlog drive is currently underway. We are hoping to make a big dent in the backlog. You can read more about it or join at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2026 ↗.

'''PageTriage'''

An attempt was made to get the New Pages Feed ↗ to sort by date marked as reviewed instead of date created. However we had to revert it due to bugs. We may try again in the future. You can subscribe to the Phabricator ticket ↗ if you're interested in following along.

{{refbegin}}
'''Reminders:'''

You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord ↗.

Consider adding the project discussion page ↗ to your watchlist.

To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here ↗.

{{refend}}
</div>

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

{| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);"
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 120px ↗
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | After an extensive search of your awesomeness, I believe this is the roof you will likely appreciate most. Feel free to change the source of this to whatever you would prefer if I’m wrong.

May you continue to grace our internet with your awesomeness. Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs ↗) 06:18, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
|}

:Thank you, that's very kind of you! Blue-Sonnet 13:46, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Needing advice

I have a problem, I made an edit request, it got approved and partly completed, they asked me to do the next step myself. I don't know what I'm allowed to do?

I worry a bit that I wasn't allowed to request the way I did, and there might have been a miscommunication.

I asked for new categories, via the page that temp accounts can use because they can't create pages.

Some of them are empty, the person who responded to the request said the usual procedure is to add the suggested pages automatically, but it glitched and they asked me to add the pages manually myself.

I'm able to add the pages, but I don't know if I'm allowed to add categories? Nobody has told me I'm not allowed to do that at all, but Mason seems to think I need to put the blocked editor request thing on pages if I want to add them to categories. Putting edit requests on all the pages seems like it is making a huge amount of work for other people? But doing it myself might make SMG furious? and leaving them empty will annoy everyone even more? Late Night Coffee '''(ping me)''' 13:13, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

:Heya, I'm not able to take a proper look at this right now but my first thought would be to explain to the other editor that you're blocked from categories, so you can't complete the request yourself. Blue-Sonnet 13:51, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Recent AELECT

Hi @Blue-Sonnet, I hope you are fairing well. The recent AELECT has finished. You may have seen that @Drm310 ran with very few contributions to mainspace ↗, their contributions to "upstream" areas of the project that ultimately effect mainspace (CSD, admin backlog areas) demonstrated their knowledge of policy and guidelines sufficiently. They passed.

I think you would be quite similar, albeit with a shorter tenure (though this isn't an outright disqualifier). There is another AELECT in October, by which time you would have around 11,000 edits based on your current trajectory ↗.

At that time I would support your nomination. Editors like content creation, but @Drm310 has proven it isn't absolutely required. It's ultimately your decision, but I think you would have a strong chance of passing with a few good nominators. I know that @Femke is subscribed to WP:AWOT ↗ posts (which this basically is), so I'll courtesy ping them here. It's five months away, so you've got time to prepare should you choose to give it a go. Either way, you have my support! 11WB (talk) 18:06, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

:Thank you! I think October might be a good idea, I wanted to see how this election ran and it seemed to be very smooth - it's definitely helped my understanding of what's involved and the sorts of things I should be focusing on in the interim! I've had some personal stuff recently that meant this election wasn't good timing anyway, but October seems like a reasonable target to aim for. Blue-Sonnet 18:09, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
::Excellent! Seems the metaphorical train is en route in that case. I have no doubt in my mind (and having spoken to a few editors myself offwiki), that you have a lot of support behind you. You've done superb work on the project! If you can get a few edits in to mainspace between now and October, that will only strengthen your case! 11WB (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
:::Agreed, thank you! Blue-Sonnet 18:13, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

left|150px ↗
This comment ↗ was well written, and the banners on your talk page made me smile. Cheers!

Magnolia677 (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
 

:Aw, thank you! Sometimes direct callouts like that work, so I figured it was worth a shot 😁
:The way I see it, if they're honest then we could maybe suggest the standard offer to see if there's anything salvageable, if they're not honest then at least we've given them a fair go! Blue-Sonnet 22:05, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

A barnstar for you!!

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 100px ↗
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''A barnstar for you!'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thank you for being part of the fight against vandalism ↗ on English Wikipedia, and being one of the top five most active ↗ pending changes reviewers in the last 30 days. Your hard work is very much appreciated, please keep it up. – Destinyokhiria ('''talk''' / '''cont ↗''') 06:31, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
|}

:Really? I didn't think I was that active on there - thank you! Blue-Sonnet ''In solidarity'' ↗ 09:56, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2026 May#Persecution of transgender people under the second Trump administration ↗

Hi, there is a move review underway relevant to a discussion you were recently involved in. Link above. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:00, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Machine translation and AI

You are 100000% correct that most machine translation is integrating LLMs in some way and it causes me work headaches. LOL. But I'm generally more forgiving of machine translation than of telling a chatbot to do your conversations for you. Simonm223 (talk) 11:26, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

:That's definitely a headache - some do it more than others, making it really hard to tell! I've tested Gemini and it will straight up translate text if you ask it to, on my phone it'll "view" the page you're looking at and give you a translation from there... Since the phrasing was a little AI-ish, I wondered if that was the case?
:Regardless, the lines are fast becoming blurred! Blue-Sonnet ''In solidarity'' ↗ 14:44, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
::Yeah. Could very well be. Simonm223 (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
:::Welp, since they've gone AWOL we may never know 😑 Blue-Sonnet ''In solidarity'' ↗ 15:07, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

{| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | 100px|link=Wikipedia:SOLIDARITY ↗
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The For-Scaring-the-heck-outta-me Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Earlier today, I was looking through pages that link to WP:SOLIDARITY ↗ (a redirect I created), and was frightened to see over five HUNDRED pages link to it all the sudden, only to find out 20 minutes later that most of these are pages that transclude WP:AIV ↗, which includes your signature, which has links to WP:SOLIDARITY ↗. ''Whew!''
I then looked through your talk page, and realized just how many barnstars you already have, from your anti-vandal work to being the peace dove in furious disputes. I think you need even more, so here's this one extra barnstar to pile on! - BlueEleephant (talk · contribs ↗) 15:12, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
|}

:That's very kind of you, thank you so much! Blue-Sonnet ''In solidarity'' ↗ 15:13, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

On hyperbole

Setting aside the question of whether I agree with your revised version ↗, I think it is very reasonable to characterize the step up from “not a good university” to “has no business calling itself a university” as unnecessary hyperbole. I went to a Culver's ↗ last week; it was not a good restaurant, but it would be pretty darn hyperbolic to say it had no business calling itself a restaurant. ~2026-28259-76 ↗ (talk) 14:43, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

:Ok, that's fine as your opinion bit I'm not sure why you felt the need to bring it to my Talk page two days later? I've also not edited either article so I'm not sure what you mean by my "revised version" - regardless, I don't see how continuing this discussion is helpful to either of us. Blue-Sonnet ''In solidarity'' ↗ 14:53, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
::Because I didn’t edit for the last two days and in the interim the thread was closed, so it is not appropriate to respond in the natural place. By revised version I mean that in your second message, you defended your original hyperbolic description but also simultaneously weakened the statement (i.e., you wrote a defense of X but in your defense you substituted something else in place of X). ~2026-28259-76 ↗ (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
:::What did I replace? I always referred to universities and how Wikipedia isn't responsible for the education of students. Blue-Sonnet ''In solidarity'' ↗ 15:23, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
:::{{tps}} https://wondermark.com/c/1062/ NebY (talk) 15:48, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
::::I forgot about that strip, it's a good one! Blue-Sonnet ''In solidarity'' ↗ 15:54, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

It depends ...

is a phrase that lawyers are famous for saying. I find it helpful to sometimes say "no" with unblock requests even if the more nuanced answer is "it depends". voorts (talk/contributions ↗) 16:59, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

:That's a very good point - I don't want to raise any false hope either... I'll have to be more careful when I'm writing in a rush! Blue-Sonnet ''In solidarity'' ↗ 17:02, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
:I didn't realise they might be talking about recreating the ''same'' articles - I honestly thought we'd made the point clear but on re-reading I'm not sure we have... Blue-Sonnet ''In solidarity'' ↗ 17:07, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
::I think I've made it pretty clear at this point. voorts (talk/contributions ↗) 17:10, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
:::Yep, if they don't understand by now then I don't think we can change that! Blue-Sonnet ''In solidarity'' ↗ 17:11, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Black Females in Architecture

Hi Blue-Sonnet. I just declined the speedy deletion request you placed on Draft:Black Females in Architecture ↗. G5 ↗ requires that the sockpuppeteer be blocked at the time the page was created. Otherwise, the creation isn't in violation of a block. Since all of the accounts were only blocked today, G5 doesn't apply here. Feel free to take it to MFD ↗ if you still think it should be deleted (or just let it time out ↗). Chess enjoyer ↗ (talk) 01:49, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

:Ah, I got the timing totally wrong there - my error, apologies for wasting your time! Blue-Sonnet ''In solidarity'' ↗ 01:53, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
::All's good :)
::If anything, you're being too hard on yourself. I'm not an administrator, and it's my own decision to patrol CAT:CSD ↗. Chess enjoyer ↗ (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
:::You didn't see the three others I nominated and just panic-reverted 😅
:::I'm normally good on socks & blocks, just had a blind spot for some reason today - thanks so much for letting me know though! Blue-Sonnet ''In solidarity'' ↗ 02:02, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
::::Your welcome. {{tq|You didn't see the three others}} – Except I did. I was in the middle of reverting one of them, but you beat me to it. Thanks for cleaning up after yourself, and for cleaning up the creations of other socks. Chess enjoyer ↗ (talk) 02:09, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::Ah, no problem - I'm a big believer in clearing up my own mess!
:::::Welp, except in my bedroom, I'm not quite sure where the floor is anymore... Blue-Sonnet ''In solidarity'' ↗ 02:12, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Some tiramisu for you!

A floor for you!

A barnstar for you!

{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:top;" | 100px ↗

|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: bottom; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Civility Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | I'm always seeing your name when I browse disputes, and your conduct is commendable. I want to thank you for treating all users with kindness and compassion! The comments you left at User talk:Jamesedmondsmith7 are a great example of your stellar approach :) '''JordyGrey''' talk🧸 ↗ 11:19, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
|}

:Oh yeah, that was a difficult situation that could have gone awry very easily - I'm just glad I was able to defuse things! Thanks so much for this! ''In solidarity'' ↗, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 16:41, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, fellow ADHD sufferer!

Me being ADHD, how are you today? I always see your arguments on ANI (I like to read the archives a lot) and see that your civility is amazing. It truly is your greatest strength! '''🩷Thatg1rlAv3ry🩷''' '''(Talk to me!!)''' 02:24, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

:Hi! That's very nice of you to say, thank you! ''In solidarity'' ↗, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 02:32, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
::I'm also autistic hehe '''🩷Thatg1rlAv3ry🩷''' '''(Talk to me!!)''' 02:34, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
:::A lot of our best editors are neurodivergent in some way, so I'm sure you'll do great here! ''In solidarity'' ↗, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 03:09, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
::::my hyperfixation is astronomyyyyy '''🩷Thatg1rlAv3ry🩷''' '''(Talk to me!!)''' 12:29, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::That's a really interesting subject, it can use a lot more editors working on it! ''In solidarity'' ↗, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 13:26, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::I'm actually quite glad you're being so patient with me! It truly is kind of you. '''🩷Thatg1rlAv3ry🩷''' '''(Talk to me!!)''' 13:39, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::No problem at all, if there's one thing I'm good at it's patience - on Wikipedia, at least 🙂 ''In solidarity'' ↗, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 16:43, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Review my replies?

Hi! You seem to be extremely skilled at communicating on Wikipedia, and since you are familiar with AutumnHornet and their edits, I wondered if you could look over my replies on their talk page and offer some advice, if you have the time? I have a feeling I didn't handle it as well as I should have. Thank you so much. In solidarity ↗, 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me! ↗) 17:35, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

:Ah, I saw that in passing but didn't want to butt in... Give me a few and I'll see if I can smooth things over!
:If it helps, whenever I write a comment and I'm feeling a little stressed/sharp, I'll write it but then go fetch a cup of tea or go pet the cat - anything to "break" my current thought process.
:I'll then go back to the comment and see if I still think it's a good idea. Sometimes I imagine that my boss or someone important might read it; I'll only click Publish if I'd be ok with them reading it!
:That said, I still get things wrong, so I'll go back in to soften the wording. It also helps to imagine how my comment would look if it turns out I'm wrong in the future.
:I'm not sure if any of this is helpful, but I'll let you know if I have anything more specific once I've taken a peek at the discussion. ''In solidarity'' ↗, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 17:43, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
::That's actually very helpful, thank you :) In solidarity ↗, 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me! ↗) 17:51, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
:::All done! I've been trying to think about how I write my posts since I don't normally have a plan 😅
:::I guess it's a combination of these things:
:::*'''Empathising''' - show you understand why they took those actions & that they meant well.
:::*'''Validation''' - reassurance that they're not bad or unworthy (sometimes posts can come across that way unintentionally, so I explicitly tell them I don't think that way).
:::*'''Keeping it clear''' - give feedback but explain ''why'' it's a problem, examples often help
:::*'''Stay positive''' - giving validation or reassurance after the feedback really helps, in case they're feeling attacked or down afterwards - bring their mood back up if you can
:::*'''Propose a way forward''' - just flat feedback can feel like a "no, that's final" and make someone feel like they want to give up. I like to open up a path for them, even if it's small (e.g. let's do X the next week)
:::*'''Ask them if they agree''' - this is tricky but crucial. Set the plan, but ask if they think it's a good idea. They'll either agree & cement the idea in their mind, or disagree and let you know what they're thinking (or whether you've missed anything important). It also involves them in the feedback and rehab - empowering them by helping them think how to work through problems like this.
:::I try to use at least some of these when I'm giving feedback. I think Autumn needed pretty much all of them so I'm hopeful that this helped in some way!
:::TLDR is to keep it positive, show you understand that they were trying their best and involve them in a plan going forwards. ''In solidarity'' ↗, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 18:14, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
::::I've just realised that there might not be much guidance for mentors when giving feedback - perhaps it might be worth writing an essay?
::::I've had training on giving feedback through my job (I also deal with complaints a ton) so this could be something that might be useful for mentors. I imagine that most editors just ask a couple of questions and that's it, but there are others who need extra support.
::::If/when I get time, I might transfer this into my sandbox & see if it can be made into an essay... ''In solidarity'' ↗, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 18:21, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
::::This is so helpful; I wasn't sure what I was doing wrong but I knew I was missing something :) Autumn and I have very different communication styles, and I wasn't sure how to advise them without angering or confusing them.
::::I'll keep this in mind for the future. I was actually about to suggest you turn this into an essay when I saw your most recent reply. I'll probably copy and paste your advice to a subpage of my user page so I don't lose it in the meantime, if that's alright with you?
::::I know you've heard this before, but I am still surprised you're not an admin. Have a great day, and thank you again. In solidarity ↗, 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me! ↗) 18:26, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::Totally fine with me if it helps people! Sometimes you can tell that they're a younger editor, in those cases I go as softly as I can because they're still learning about the world and how to interact with other people. Since we only have the written word to go from here, other social cues aren't available & it's frighteningly easy to misunderstand each other.
:::::BTW Feel free to let me know if you need a hand with any other editors who need extra support, if I'm good at it I'm happy to help 😁
:::::Admin is possibly in the pipeline for the next few months, I don't have much active editing experience and less than 10k edits, so I really want to work on that first - if/when I go for it, I want a good shot! ''In solidarity'' ↗, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 18:32, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::Thank you so much again, I really cannot express how much you have helped. I'll leave a barnstar for your collection :) Good luck with adminship, if/when you decide to go through with it; I'd be happy to nominate/co-nominate/vouch for you. In solidarity ↗, 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me! ↗) 18:38, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::That's so kind, thank you! ''In solidarity'' ↗, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 18:44, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Three-revert rule

Just a note: a couple of days ago, at User talk:~2026-27874-38, you said {{tq|The three revert rule only excludes edits made in bad faith.}} But that's not the case at all. Edit warring is actionable regardless of whether in good faith or bad faith. WP:3RRNO ↗ makes no exception for good faith edits. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 22:11, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

:You're right, I should have made it clearer as there was a lot going on (I ended up in hospital for a bit) - I meant to say it excludes things like obvious vandalism and sockpuppetry but I couldn't get my thoughts out properly that day! I should have gone back to correct myself when I was feeling better. ''In solidarity'' ↗, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 00:39, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

About "Ika people" discussion on ANI

I was giving the filer in this discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1358662758#Prof_NV_misrepresenting_sources_on_Ika_people_article ↗ a little leeway because I remember someone on ANI recently pointing out recently that Nigerians online are hit by false positives for LLM use a lot, and also I was trying to make sure the other editor's conduct wasn't slipping through the cracks. That said, some of the things about this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ika_people&diff=prev&oldid=1357867191 ↗, like randomly removing the topics section for whatever reason, don't bode well for them being honest about AI Amatmilen (talk) 10:14, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

:That's not a good look, they basically wiped everything and just added lots of people - removing all context. If it continues then perhaps WP:AINB ↗ may be best, that usually requires some WP:AISIGNS ↗ to help bolster the report. It could be that an AI took the title "Ika people" very literally. ''In solidarity'' ↗, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 13:33, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Fish and Chips ↗ Talk

I have reversed your redaction at the above page. Please do not alter other peoples posts as it is considered very rude. thanks. - '''Walter''' Still not in the Epstein Files '''Ego''' 12:34, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

:Reverting the personal attacks? It was a request made on ANI and I felt it was ok considering that context but I won't do it again if it's against policy. ''In solidarity'' ↗, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 12:49, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
::Good. I only read ANI once a day at the moment. If it was to be redacted, it should have been done before anybody had a chance to respond, not like this, a milquetoast response far far too late. - '''Walter''' Still not in the Epstein Files '''Ego''' 12:54, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
:::@Blue-Sonnet, I agree with Roxy that it's best to let sleeping personal attacks lie, unless they're so vile they're likely to cause psychic damage to innocent bystanders. Telling someone off for that and ''reinstating'' the personal attack sure is something else, though. In solidarity ↗, asilvering (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
::::Point well taken, they weren't bad enough to warrant my drawing further attention to the matter - thanks for letting me know! ''In solidarity'' ↗, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 13:21, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

help with talking to challenging editor on AINB?

Hi Blue Sonnet, hope you are feeling better! Feel free to ignore this if you don't feel up to it.

I'm kind of in awe of your communication abilities, and wonder if you can help sort this one, or at least guess if the user has communications issues or is just trolling us. User:Preye douglas is at WP:AI noticeboard#Preye douglas 2 ↗ after a previous block for LLM use. He's submitted Woman Commando ↗ which had text/source issues, but they are of a kind I've seen several times lately where the information is actually present in sources in the article, but not the ones cited inline for it. I'm unable to get across that it's not enough for the material to be true, and it's not enough for there to be a source somewhere in the article--the inline citation actually has to point at the right source.

I don't think I can contribute to that thread anymore or it will be bludgeoning. Either an opinion on what's happening there, or any kind of nudge you could give the editor, would be deeply appreciated--but again, not unless you've got the energy to spare. M kuhner (talk) 03:59, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

:I've given it a shot, but there's quite a lot going on there already so I'm not sure how helpful I'll be. It seems this might be a case of someone who doesn't want to hear what we're saying, rather than someone who needs some guidance - we'll see what happens! ''In solidarity'' ↗, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 07:10, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
::Thank you! Figured it was worth a try. M kuhner (talk) 13:59, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
:::Looks like it kind of worked, at least they get inline citations now. ''In solidarity'' ↗, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 14:55, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Responding to AI usage

<s>Hello Blue Sonnet,</s>
<s>I am a real person not a Bot. I acknowledge that for transparency a COI at the beginning of my post. The request for protection was my own words, and I sought AI for correction of grammar only. HRH Princess Karen W. S. Brengettsy-Chatman profile is being targeted and vandalized, I seek protect under BLP Wikipedia mandates. Her positions and source claims can be verified by the mentioned references. The photo was published here https://totalprestigemagazine.com/her-royal-highness-princess-karen-of-the-house-of-sori-a-princess-of-the-people/ and was the presented photo was taken by her with a tripod not AI generated. The claims of US government recognition by Ambassdor Fitrel is also public knowledge and a copy is published in her book The Lost crown of Prince Abdulrahman Ibrahima ibn Sori and the Sovereign's Redemption. Thank you Home817 Home817 (talk) 08:38, 16 June 2026 (UTC) </s>Sockpuppet comment struck out by 海盐沙冰 / aka irisChronomia / Talk 14:04, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Shiny new UI!

Any thoughts on the new Wikipedia UI makeovers? I personally find the new icons to have a crisp and edgy feeling, and it makes the overall visuals less cluttered and pleasing. 海盐沙冰 / aka irisChronomia / Talk 14:08, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

:I'm on mobile so haven't seen much aside from the automatic minimising of topics changing to a little arrow - I thought I'd broken something 😅 I don't think mobile is a priority for Meta, there are soooo many bugs with Visual Editor that I think a third of my edits have the summary "typo"...
:I recently tried the app and, well, just No. Nope. ''In solidarity'' ↗, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 14:17, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
::I find the iOS app to be less suitable for the job than Android one, for the former doesn't even support wikilink search box. The Android one I can... maybe... plausibly work with.
::(This is because running Wikipedia on browsers heats up my >6-year old phones, so I often use the app to save battery). 海盐沙冰 / aka irisChronomia / Talk 17:52, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
:::I've just tried the Android one, or seems to be built for reading rather than editing! The scripts done seem to work either, but then again I lost patience in trying to set it up because I didn't like the way it looked 😅 ''In solidarity'' ↗, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 17:59, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Sulfur edit

Hello, you've reverted my edit on the Sulfur article, saying that it was likely written by AI and something about my sources not being real... I'm really confused, it was not written by AI at all, and I'm not exactly sure what the source thing is referring to, as all the sources listed are real and accessible. ~2026-35638-87 ↗ (talk) 21:32, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

:Thanks for the clarification and apologies for not being clear, the notification was a pre-written template.
:I couldn't find Lavoisier mentioned in source #109, which was cited in support of him debunking phlogiston theory - AI can often hallucinate sources and tends to write in title case, which was why I was a little concerned. I also couldn't find a reference to a sulfur globe on source 107, although I'm currently editing on mobile & that site is behind a paywall/account login. ''In solidarity'' ↗, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 21:44, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
::Source 109 is "Origine et fortune du Soufre Principe", right? It's mainly about Geoffroy but it mentions Lavoisier debunking the phlogiston theory : "''le phlogistique de Stahl, qu'il semble alors être le premier à mentionner en France, soulignant ainsi l'importance pour la chimie de l'époque d'une substance dont les travaux de Lavoisier montreraient par la suite l'inanité, mais qui fut au centre des débats chimiques du XVIIIe siècle.''". Lavoisier's work and phlogiston theory is further discussed in source 111. Honestly if the issues are the sulfur globe and the sources on Lavoisier, I can provide additional sources if necessary. ~2026-35638-87 ↗ (talk) 22:19, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
:::I'm so sorry, I'm not sure what's going on but using the link that was given as a source https://shs.cairn.info/revue-d-histoire-des-sciences-2021-1-page-63?lang=fr ↗ I can't find that quote at all. I've tried searching a few different ways and different parts of the quote but I just can't see it there. ''In solidarity'' ↗, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 22:42, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
:BTW The source numbers I'm using are from this diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sulfur&diff=prev&oldid=1360495487 ↗
:The page numbers given were rather large (e.g. 63-84) which can make it difficult to look up exactly which part of the book/paper you're referring to. If I've made any errors as a result, please let me know and I'll be happy to look into it further. ''In solidarity'' ↗, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 21:54, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
::Oh, I see what's going on now. The mistake is on me, the version I'm working with that mentions Lavoisier is from l'Actualité Chimique, n°444-445 (on page 101). It is part of a larger article on Geoffroy and his table, you should be able to find it online. I didn't notice that the one I put as a source wasn't the correct one, I apologize for the mix-up.
::About the titles, I only added capitalization on words that take some (e.g. "Early Modern period", "Scientific Revolution"). Was that wrong? ~2026-35638-87 ↗ (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
:::Phew, I thought my phone was playing up! I see what you mean about the titles, if you want to resubmit the edit with a corrected link I'll be happy to get it reviewed asap for you? ''In solidarity'' ↗, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 23:04, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
::::Okay, should I include more sources about the sulfur globe or is it good as is? There's a depiction of it on Wikimedia Commons, I could also include it if that's okay.
::::Wait, now I'm seeing that a previous edit of mine on Sulfur (that was approved and had no issue with the sources) also got reverted as a "presumptive LLM revert", what is going on... Should I rewrite that as well? Am I gonna get systematically branded as AI? ~2026-35638-87 ↗ (talk) 23:30, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
:::All fixed, I think the other editor was going off my edit summary - we are absolutely swamped with AI-generated stuff that sometimes it's better to be pre-emptive to protect articles, since we can easily revert later. I've added a clarification so if you submit a corrected edit it should be fine! You make really well-written edits so I hope you consider creating an account. ''In solidarity'' ↗, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 23:37, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
::::No worries, I get it, better play it safe to avoid AI-generated content.
::::Thank you for the compliment, I'm not very confident about the quality of my edits (English isn't my first language), so I'm a bit hesitant about making a proper account for now. I'll consider it though. ~2026-35638-87 ↗ (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::Glad to hear it! I've got work in a few hours so I may not be online for a while, but if you have any further issues please let me know! I've updated your Talk page and added a new edit summary to the article, so you should hopefully be ok going forwards. ''In solidarity'' ↗, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 00:08, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::Thank you, I'll let you know if I have any issues, then! (I ended up making an account after all!) Zinjafr (talk) 02:31, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::I accepted your edit so looks like we're sorted, really glad to see you've made an account 😁 ''In solidarity'' ↗, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 08:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Chezborgor For You!

<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:brown; background-color:gold; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">100px|left ↗

NovaAeterna (talk) has given you a Cheeseburger ↗! Cheeseburgers promote WikiLove ↗ and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Cheeseburger, whether it be someone you've had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy eating! 

''I was gonna give you More Cookies but considering I work in Fast Food, I would think I can whip up something better than that. For all your good work in ANI, Unbans and everywhere else you go!''

Spread the goodness of Cheeseburgers by adding {{tls|Cheeseburger}} to their talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cheeseburger on the giver's talk page with {{tls|burger-munch}}!
{{clear}}
</div>

NovaAeterna (talk) 09:52, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

:Thankies! ''In solidarity'' ↗, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 10:06, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Requests for page protection ↗ for the templates ↗ declined due to not enough recent disruptive to justify protection

Hi Blue-Sonnet, I have some to tell you

The templates ↗ should places the template page (e.g. Template:Slovak municipality ↗), with the reason (e.g. Indefinite semi-protection: High-risk template) by them, on the requests for page protection page ↗, but they can't, because they declined, with not enough recent disruptive to justify protection. ~2026-36475-94 ↗ (talk) 16:54, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

:I'm not an administrator, I'm afraid that I can't do anything about page protection. Why do you want them protected? ''In solidarity'' ↗, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 18:57, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:Can I also please ask why you chose to message me in particular? I don't think I've made any edits relating to that template, it'd be really helpful if you can give me a bit of background so I can see if there's any way I can help. ''In solidarity'' ↗, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 20:03, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::In this English Wikipedia scene, The template ↗ should places the template page (e.g. Template:Slovak municipality ↗), with the reason (e.g. Indefinite semi-protection: High-risk template) by them, on the requests for page protection page ↗. they attempt to protect the template page, but they can't, because they declined, with not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. LogoFan2007 (talk) 01:08, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
:::Templates don't need to be protected unless there's something we need to protect them from.
:::Protection is only needed if there is disruption - if there is no disruption, then they don't need protecting from anything.
:::Can you let me know what it is that you'd like me to do, exactly? ''In solidarity'' ↗, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 01:14, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

::: {{ping|~2026-36475-94|LogoFan2007}} Can you clarify exactly what it is that you are asking for? The template you mentioned is already extended-confirmed protected, and I can't find any recent request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase ↗ that this could refer to. You say ''"they attempt to protect the template page, but they can't, because they declined"''. Who attempts to protect what template? Who declined the request?

::: Also if the temporary account and LogoFan2007 are the same person (as seems to be the case) then you should avoid making posts both with and without logging into your permanent account, because doing so can he misleading and confusing. JBW (talk) 11:53, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
::::I'm sure I've had a very similar discussion with a TA a few months ago on WP:AN ↗, unfortunately I wasn't able to get to the bottom of their query.
::::I imagine this is the same editor, since they decided to approach me directly? It's just a pity that I don't fully understand what they want me to do. ''In solidarity'' ↗, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 12:09, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::On the English Wikipedia scene, The template ↗ should places the template page (e.g. Template:Taxonomy/Tylorhaphe ↗), with the reason (e.g. Indefinite semi-protection: High-risk template) by them, on the requests for page protection's Increase page ↗. they attempt to protect the template page, but they declined with not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. ~2026-36459-16 ↗ (talk) 14:19, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::Are you saying that template should always have done level of protection? That's not true, protection is only needed in unusual cases when the template is being damaged by disruptive editors. If nobody is damaging the template, it doesn't need protecting.
::::::By the way, can you please make sure you're logged into your account when editing Wikipedia? It's very confusing when I don't know if I'm speaking to the same person or three different people. ''In solidarity'' ↗, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 02:14, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

New account

I'm wondering if Special:Contributions/Slider12 ↗ could be related to anyone you know... JBW (talk) 11:28, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

:Oh yep! Looks a lot like this ↗... ''In solidarity'' ↗, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 11:40, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

About ANI

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1360908359 ↗ Won’t comment there because I’ve seen how battleground mentality works, and it’ll go on and on until the battleground user has the “last word”. Nobody wants this especially when someone’s clearly not competent enough to even understand they aren’t allowed to make noticeboard discussions let alone continue commenting and wasting community time. But it comes to a point when aspersions and personal attacks are being made, repeatedly, this is a line I draw. Which is why I can’t understand why you give this user so much leeway, many have been sanctioned for way less, I’m sure you’ve seen it especially if you edited contentious topics.

We shouldn’t try to cure somebody when they repeatedly reject the remedy and would rather take the bitter poison. It’s not our job as editors. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 12:43, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

:Honestly it's a last resort on my part - I normally withdraw earlier but I haven't had much sleep thanks to a heatwave so my usual training skills are a little skewed!
:I figured it was worth a shot anyway even if it's pointless then at least I've tried. If they respond after this, then I've made it clear that I'm out & it's all up to the admins... ''In solidarity'' ↗, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 12:50, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
::No worries, appreciate the effort. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 12:59, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you

First of all, thank you for your good intentions, but as far as I can see, the other editor is continuing with their aggressive attitude and accusations against me. To avoid prolonging the issue like they did, I wanted to write here. It's not pleasant that some sanctions I received in the past are constantly being brought up and used against me in an attempt to discredit me. Thank you for your efforts and have a good day. Erdemozcantr (talk) 13:17, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

:I'm glad I can help - I know it's difficult for people to see eye-to-eye when the internet is in the way, thankfully Wikipedia is massive!
:If you see them in passing, just move onto another article, focus on yourself and forget any of this ever happened (except the policy stuff, obvs).
:Don't forget that the Teahouse is always available 24/7 and you'll still have a mentor ↗ allocated to you if you need one-on-one support.
:Good luck! ''In solidarity'' ↗, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 13:26, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I honestly think this is the first time I've seen anybody do that: here is a second one

I saw your comment on :User talk:AlphaVictorDelta0107 ↗. You have done a really good job of trying to help him or her. {{hidden ping|AlphaVictorDelta0107}}But it is hard when they do not really understand, and therefore reject the course of action that would lead to them building up the understanding they need; it is the problem of things they don't know they don't know ↗. See also :User talk:MarSteGeo#Blocked as a sockpuppet ↗, where he/she rejected the standard offer as a way out of his/her hole.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

:Yeah, I've never seen someone reject the standard offer before! I don't know if that means they can never come back at all, or if we'd allow them to reconsider in the future? I don't think they fully understood what they were saying either... ''In solidarity'' ↗, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 10:39, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
:BTW I thought you were going to link to this ↗ when I first clicked on it! I'm surprised we haven't got a description of the robbery that led to the term - I think it was that robber who thought he could make himself invisible by painting lemon juice on his face? I wonder if we have an article on that, I'll have to look it up later... ''In solidarity'' ↗, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 12:42, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

{| style="border: 2px solid lightgray; background-color: #fafafa; color: black"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | 100px ↗
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em; color:#606570" |'''Editor of the Week'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 2px solid lightgray" |Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week ↗ in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project ↗)
|}
RossEvans19 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week ↗:
:I would like to nominate Blue-Sonnet. All you need to do is check their talk page to see how valued they are here. So many fellow Wikipedians have praised them, and given them barnstars, for their patience and kindness when dealing with other editors, including problematic ones. Blue-Sonnet's conversations with editors in the unblock queue are especially laudable. They really deserve this award for their continued kindness despite all the stuff they put up with, it's a very inspirational and admirable trait to have. They have been recommended to become an administrator twice, and do lots of work at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. They have also done work dealing with vandalism on Wikipedia.This nomination was seconded by MPGuy2824, Staraction, GoldRomean, QuicoleJR, House and LuniZunie.
You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:
<syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext">{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}</syntaxhighlight>
{{WP:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Infobox
| recipient = Blue-Sonnet
| week_start_date = June 28, 2026
| mini_bio = One need only check their talk page to see how valued they are here. So many fellow Wikipedians have praised them, and given them barnstars, for their patience and kindness when dealing with other editors, including problematic ones. Blue-Sonnet's conversations with editors in the unblock queue are especially laudable. They really deserve this award for their continued kindness despite all the stuff they put up with. It is a very inspirational and admirable trait to have. They have been recommended to become an administrator twice, and do lots of work at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. They have also done work dealing with vandalism on Wikipedia.
| recognized_for = courteous conversations
| notable_works = 
| image = New editor delivery Hires.png
| caption = '''new editor on the right path'''
| image_size = 200px
}}
Thanks again for your efforts! '''Buster Seven'''''' Talk''' (UTC) 15:13, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

:Wow, I've never won anything like this before, thank you! ''In solidarity'' ↗, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 15:15, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
::Congrats Blue, well deserved! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
::Congratulations, Blue! Your unblocks work is unparalleled and I envy your boundless patience. "twice" is a massive understatement, please don't keep us waiting... '''Toadspike [[User talk:Toadspike|[Talk]]]''' 16:36, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
:::Thank you! I was trying to hit 10k edits by Aug/Oct but I've hit a wall of sorts! I think I might have to bite the bullet and do an RFA before I get there, everyone wants me to go for it asap 😅 End of July I'll reconsider, promise! BTW I think it's actually four times, which is mad to say...''In solidarity'' ↗, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 16:40, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
:::Whoops, didn't realize it was more than twice, I only saw two recs - my bad lmao - but well deserved Blue Sonnet!! RossEvans19 (talk) 20:11, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
::::The other two were a while ago and pretty new editors, so I took it more as a passing complement than anything serious - I'd actually forgotten until now - it's a really nice memory to bring back! Thanks so much for the nomination 🙂 ''In solidarity'' ↗, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 20:26, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
:Congratulations indeed, your noticeboard comments are exemplary! —'''In solidarity with Wiki Workers United ↗''' · ClaudineChionh (''she/her'' ↗ · talk · email ↗) 04:54, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
::Thank you! Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) ''In solidarity'' ↗ 04:55, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

How to add new sock to opened SPI case?

Hi, I see you are following the Rodfellows troll issue, and wanted to ask: I think I have another one. How do I add it to the case? Do I poke it into the list at the top of the report? Add it to the text? Thanks! M kuhner (talk) 20:45, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

:Also, congratulations on Editor of the Week--extremely well deserved! You set a very high standard for patience and perseverance. M kuhner (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
::Thank you! You can add a note to the other editor comment section in the middle, or also add it to the top - you need to add 3=NAME| so there is a pipe between each entry - 1=NAME|2=NAME|3=NAME|. Make sure to preview, so you can tell it's gone in properly 🙂 ''In solidarity'' ↗, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 23:21, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
:::Done, but now there's another one. Argh!
:::Thanks for your help. I can't apply for TAIV for several more months so I have to rely on behavior, which of course is easy to get wrong (unless they mention Rodfellows, anyway). The current guy drawing stick figures, I wouldn't expect it's the Rodfellow, except the timing is just too close. M kuhner (talk) 00:21, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
::::There are a couple of LTA's ↗ & disruptive editors who post similar questions at the Teahouse - this is almost certainly ''someone'' evading a block, the question is who... Their previous edit history doesn't quite match, so I'm not sure on this one. ''In solidarity'' ↗, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 00:24, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
::::BTW It's a total PITA to tell TA's apart without TAIV, so try to grab at least a couple of similar edits from the old account, or one ''really obvious'' one to bolster your case 🙂 As in, TA-01 diff looks like TA-02 diff, then give a second example. The more, the better! Since Teahouse is where we get both newbies and trolls/spammers, it's a difficult place to tell them all apart, unfortunately. Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) ''In solidarity'' ↗ 01:29, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry kitten I’m just pissed that I can’t edit on this website so what’s the point Jacobjdjehdheheh (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

:Thank you for your apology, is not that you ''can't'' edit Wikipedia, it's just that you need to do it properly. Everyone here really cares about making sure the articles are accurate, especially when it comes to individual people.
:It protects you as well, so it's not possible for a random editor to come along, say they're your manager and change your first name to "Daisy" - if someone does that, another editor will change it back and insist they have ''very solid proof''. We want to make sure everything on there is verifiable ↗ - if it can't be verified, we'd rather play it safe and not have it at all.
:If you look through the links I left on your page, it'll explain how you can edit Wikipedia in a way that's helpful and makes sure your article is kept to a high standard. If you have any questions, please feel free to pop me a message or ask at the Teahouse ↗ 🙂 ''In solidarity,'' ↗ Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 20:21, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Routine calclulations

Hi. I saw you left me a note. The edit linked to a chart, such as "how many walks in years 1, 2, and 3." Looking at the chart, it was clear that year 2 was highest. That is a routine calculation. Not original research. See Wikipedia:No original research#Routine calculations ↗. It's not something that as you said you have to delete. imho

~2026-24112-43 ↗ (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

:Hi, thanks for letting me know - it might be an issue with the way it's displaying for me. The link goes to a table with the results for a single year, with totals & regular season stats at the bottom. I'm not seeing anything that said it's the highest of his whole career, can you please let me know where that is on the 2023 page? https://www.espn.com/mlb/player/gamelog/_/id/32177/year/2023/category/batting ↗
:WP:CALC ↗ says that: ({{Tqq|Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources ↗}}), but the single source in that sentence was for the 2023 stats page and I can't see a chart - unless it's not displaying correctly for me, of course.
:BTW a consensus ↗ is also usually reached through discussion article Talk page, as mentioned in the above quote. If it involves counting/comparing the results of multiple pages (one for each year), that would probably have to go to discussion on the Talk page, if I'm reading the policy correctly. ''In solidarity,'' ↗ Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 21:08, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
::Ahhh, I see the problem. Somehow my finger must have slipped -- at the same espn page there is a link to the proper multi-year career link - this one. https://www.espn.com/mlb/player/stats/_/id/32177/jt-realmuto And I agree, though this has all the statistics on one page, it would not make sense if it were multiple pages. Ok for me to restore with that as the citation? --~2026-24112-43 ↗ (talk) 23:45, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
:::That looks fine to me! ''In solidarity,'' ↗ Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 06:35, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Barnstar

Repeated Talk Page Violations

{{collapse|1=
link=|25px|alt=Information icon ↗ There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ↗ regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. FancyFlippers (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2026 (UTC)|2=Frivolous AN thread from blocked user collapsed by 海盐沙冰 / aka irisChronomia / Talk 12:27, 9 July 2026 (UTC)}}

:ChatGPT posted the wrong notice, the thread is actually at WP:AN#Suppression of sourced content and talk page guideline violations by User:Blue-Sonnet ↗ ''ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸ''Taffer💬(they/she ↗) ''In solidarity ↗'' 17:59, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Edit warring by TAs at Primeiro Comando da Capital ↗

Theyre back at it again, the article just got edited by another TA which manually reverted my edits without summary just as last time, they appear to not care about the block and warnings on the talk (both theirs and the article's) page at all, i think this could warrant a sockpuppet case. MySalsa22 (talk) 12:09, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

:Done (reverted). No opinion on starting SPI, since it's way too WP:QUACK ↗. Thank you for patrolling. 海盐沙冰 / aka irisChronomia / Talk 12:29, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
::Reported to AIV since it's pretty obvious https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism#c-Blue-Sonnet-20260709124200-User-reported ↗ ''In solidarity,'' ↗ Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 12:43, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
:::Thanks for the help both of you, lets see though, i also agree that it may not be needed to start a SPI since the TAs are just obviously doing the same editing over and over. MySalsa22 (talk) 12:46, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
::::TBH SPI isn't always useful in cases like these, an admin at AIV can just issue a block/protect the page/log SPI as appropriate 🙂 ''In solidarity,'' ↗ Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 12:57, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi

Hello. Please tell me exactly what I should provide? I have clearly shown here that the user wrote a very vulgar comment on his talk page. Within two minutes, he edited his talk page with a temporary account and his previous accounts, which have been closed. And in Persian Wikipedia, he has repeatedly removed the block tag from his user and talk pages. His favorite topics completely overlap. Tell me where you think it is not accurate. Please check the links I gave once.
Klouim (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

:It's not that they're not accurate, it's that they're difficult to follow and a lot of them have nothing to do work sockpuppetry. SPI's only look at whether two accounts are operated by the same person. Being vulgar or disruptive in other ways shouldn't be brought to SPI because that's not the right place to report it.
:SPI's are usually short and to the point:
:*{{Tqq|I think A and B are the same, because A did this (diff) and B did the same thing (diff)}}
:*{{Tqq|A also does this other thing (diff) and B did it too (diff)}}
:You don't need long explanations, because the evidence should speak for itself - you just need to bring that evidence and clearly show how they're the same. It's hard to follow your report because you're also talking about non-sockpuppetry matters - the admin who's looking into the sockpuppetry then has to mentally shut out all the extra "noise" that doesn't help them understand if they're looking at one or two people.
:Ideally, it should be so clear that anyone can look at the diffs and go "oh yeah, that's totally the same person" - especially if you're saying they're hiding their location. The admin only needs what's important - direct and clear evidence that these are behaviourally identical. Anything else is just too distracting and unhelpful to the investigation.
:Just focus on evidence that clearly shows one person is operating two accounts - that's all you should do at SPI - show clear proof of one person operating two accounts.
:Take a look at other SPI investigations ↗ and you'll see how different they are to yours. ''In solidarity,'' ↗ Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 15:01, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
:If it helps, here's the last SPI I reported: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Prince Of Roblox#c-Blue-Sonnet-20260702174500-Suspected sockpuppets 3 ↗ - short comparisons of one against the other, each quote has a diff (green text) so the admin can easily click and compare. ''In solidarity,'' ↗ Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 15:03, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I will read your answer and respond. I am a little busy right now. Before that, you should look at the following. I also introduced Persian-speaking admins. The user hides evidence in different accounts and languages to hide. The evidence is very clear. He has been hiding for more than 8 years. He has deleted the block tag and texts from the pages of his blocked accounts more than ten times in Persian and English. These are completely obvious. I gave you all the links and I will give them again. The evidence is very strong.

also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MCE89#Perfect_Evidence_WP:DUCK

also: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GodNey&diff=prev&oldid=1338190368

بس کن زنازاده. الهی مادرت بمیره = Very vulgar profanity from the user GodNey 18:37, 13 February 2026 = Find out the meaning in Google Translate.

This is just one of the vulgar words he used without regard to etiquette and social conscience. Strong Persian obscenity on the English Wiki.Klouim (talk) 15:12, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

:I'm not an admin so unfortunately I can't really help with that incident of vulgar language, but as someone who's got a very good success rate with SPI reports I think it would be a good idea to put anything that isn't to do with multiple accounts on the backburner for a bit - deal with one problem at a time. Focus on proof of using multiple accounts first and avoid repeating yourself.
:*If they're blocked for abusing multiple accounts, you don't need to do anything more.
:*If the SPI fails, then consider whether admin action is needed for general disruption, that would be a different noticeboard & different evidence. They're unlikely to be blocked for one incident of vulgar language, however.
:Re. Your first link, remember WP:GOODSPI ↗? You're giving links to two entire page histories and one single diff - this is English Wikipedia and it's not fair to expect English-speaking admins to dig through whole histories in an entirely different language to try to guess which ones you might be referring to.
:#Find ''exact'' edits and present diffs ↗ of those exact edits
:#Directly compare one edit from the master to one edit from the sock.
:#Explain why they're the same/similar, in a short & clear sentence.
:#Move onto another pair of diffs and do the same.
:Remember that you may be familiar with the editor, but the administrator is not. Posting the same thing over and over won't change the outcome, so look for stronger, clearer evidence. The best proof is on English Wikipedia, because you're trying to show they're evading a block on English Wikipedia. ''In solidarity,'' ↗ Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 15:35, 9 July 2026 (UTC)