A request for comment is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.
Technical news
The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.
Today, between many who just died, Tobias Kratzer on his 45th birthday who was good for an unusual DYK mentioning a Verdi opera in 2018, - you can see his work in the trailer of another one that I saw, and my talk page has a third (but by a different director). 2025 pics, finally. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see now from the filter log that you are referring to the Cahit Irgat image. File:Cahit Irgat.jpg was deleted from Commons because it is a rather blatant copyright violation. We care about that sort of thing here. Your wanting to violate copyright doesn't mean we allow such violations to sustain here. Find a provably public domain or free license image instead. That an image exists on the Internet somewhere doesn't mean it's public domain, and uploading it here or at Commons doesn't mean it's your work. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging and late reply
My apologies for not seeing your original message [1]. I was active at the time, but didn't see it. I thought that TP was in my watchlist, but evidently it wasn't (not sure if it was taken out on the move or what). Regardless, I didn't see your ping until this morning. Just wanted to apologize for and explain what might have appeared to be ignoring you (which was not my intention). I have responded to the content items at the article TP. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators can now nuke pages created by a user or IP address from the last 90 days, up from the initial 30 days. T380846
A 'Recreated' tag will now be added to pages that were created with the same title as a page which was previously deleted and it can be used as a filter in Special:RecentChanges and Special:NewPages. T56145
A request for comment is open to discuss whether AI-generated images (meaning those wholly created by generative AI, not human-created images modified with AI tools) should be banned from use in articles.
A new filter has been added to the Special:Nuke tool, which allows administrators to filter for pages in a range of page sizes (in bytes). This allows, for example, deleting pages only of a certain size or below. T378488
Non-administrators can now check which pages are able to be deleted using the Special:Nuke tool. T376378
Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election
Can you decrease the protection level of the article? I know there is disruptive editing but this article contains important free information that me and other readers use to check the newest polling results and averages. If this is not removed soon enough it would be too difficult to add all the data and update. CS012831 (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CS012831: I'm not inclined to do so, barring presentation of a more convincing argument. I don't mean to disparage what you say at all. I'm simply very cognizant for the mass outbreak of edit warring that has occurred on the article which caused the protection in the first place. I was hoping discussion would ensue to hammer things out among the disputants, and at first was dismayed there apparently was just more sand tossing and finger pointing going on in the sandbox (see response to the protection). But, two days into the protection discussion began to help iron this out. I'm happy to see this process begin, but there is as yet no consensus in that discussion. Had consensus already emerged in that discussion (unlikely, given that it's just been 2 days), I would have considered dropping the protection as there would be an agreement with which to move forward. I also don't feel anything is beyond our pool of editors. While it might be more difficult to back-add in data, it will be far from impossible. Much of the notations have already been made at the suggested edit requests. We have 2.5 days of protection left. It's not that long. When the time approaches, I will be placing an additional warning on the talk page of the article to the effect that any resumption of edit warring activities will result in swift blocks of the accounts conducting the edit warring, regardless of who is 'right' or 'wrong' (which is highly subjective in this case). --Hammersoft (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First, you've not given any reason to unblock you, just that you want to be unblocked. Second, you are using an IP address to evade your block...again. Third, per WP:THREESTRIKES, you are now considered banned by the community. No one administrator has the power to unblock you. Even if they did, they can't. This is because you are globally locked. To clear the global lock, you need to appeal to [email protected]. However, such an appeal must actually have a clear reason along with an understanding of what you did wrong and what you intend on doing in the future. So far, you've not provided any reason to be unblocked. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Everything that (I think) should be done has been done. We don't do a blanket suppression of a user. If there's something I missed that you think should be taken care of, let me know. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC was closed with consensus to allow editors to opt-out of seeing "sticky decorative elements". Such elements should now be wrapped in {{sticky decoration wrapper}}. Editors who wish to opt out can follow the instructions at WP:STICKYDECO.
An RfC has resulted in a broad prohibition on the use of AI-generated images in articles. A few common-sense exceptions are recognized.
I just saw this close by you for a topic ban against [2]. Although there is a problem with Wlaak's contributions, I am not convinced that the discussion there was sufficient to justify this action, and wonder whether you could reconsider or re-open. What concerns me are a couple of things. Firstly Wlaak is a pretty new and inexperienced editor. They have been here 10 months now, and with 1000 edits, but that is still not a lot of experience, and a bit of understanding of that would be appreciated. But more concerning, and the reason I wanted to raise this with you, is that most of the supports for a topic ban in that discussion came from people with an opposing POV (and also, generally, with limited experience and none outside of the topic area). If you look at the three supports where this does not apply, two of them stated they would only support the topic ban if it were reciprocal on one of those others.
The discussion went stale, and had been stale for days. In fact, it was going to be archived without action. Re-opening it for further discussion wouldn't make sense in that context as nobody was commenting anymore anyway. Further, Wlaak was still generating problems during the discussion. There's a point at which failure to get the point needs to be addressed. A topic ban is pretty close to the weakest resolution to an issue that can be applied. I am sympathetic to there being some contrary views (such as Robert McClenon), but in the end there was at best limited opposition. As a result, I'm disinclined to re-open it myself. You are welcome to do so either at WP:AN/I in another subsection of that thread or at WP:AARV. Either way, I'm not going to be upset if you do. I just feel there's limited (at best) grounds to do so. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I don't fancy the ANI bear pit, which can be quite adversarial, but if I go to AARV, we could, at least, get some additional views. I'll open a thread there. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that you might receive opposition to starting a thread about this at WP:AARV. If so, you can let people know that I said it was ok to do so. Not that you need my permission :) --Hammersoft (talk) 13:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. I linked this discussion, but will let them know if they ask. I'll drop the official notification now (sorry! but it's required!). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well that cinches it. Dropping required notices on my talk page? How dare you! :) More seriously; I'll not respond on the AARV thread for now, as I don't want to bias the discussion. I'll observe, and if I think there are points where I could clarify things, I'll comment. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Inquiry regarding draft of recent content disputes
Wanted to leave this on your talk page so as not to flood CE's. I mentioned in a posting there that the editor who just received a topic ban (Wlaak) had an article which was the focus of a recent content dispute. This content dispute is now at Village pump awaiting GS to be placed, and I wanted to contribute in a way that could help solve the content dispute while being neutral and non-POV.
After a messy AfD, the article was converted back to draftspace and the closer (Asilvering) said "Editors are free to continue to edit this draft as they wish, to merge sections of it to mainspace articles, and so on." I assumed this applied to practically anyone, but I'm not sure whether they meant specifically editors who were involved in making the draft. One of the things I listed in my message on CE's talk page was to condense the references and merge some of the draft's content to the current Arameans article. In your opinion, would this help or interrupt dispute resolution? I just don't want to continue down this path if others are going to say it's inherently POV-driven, which is not my intention.
I don't have an opinion one way or another as to how to proceed with dispute resolution on that subject. However, at least two people at the tban discussion recommended topic banning you from the area as well. I could not include you for the topic ban, as that was not the subject at hand in the discussion. Nevertheless, I think it would be a very, very good idea for you to voluntarily step away from the general areas of Assyrian/Chaldean/Aramean/Syriac subjects for the time being. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I'd like to step out of the general topic area for the time being and get experience elsewhere to take a break from everything. Thanks for the reply, I'll take your advice and work elsewhere for now. Surayeproject3 (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Barnstar of Diplomacy
I truly appreciate your patience and kindness regarding this tban. My first thought upon seeing them Streisand themselves at XRV was something like "oh no, I can't watch!" I'm grateful for your actions, and that you live up to your name. -- asilvering (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering: Thanks for the barnstar :) I really do appreciate it!!! Unfortunately though, my patience is now shot [3]. Eight violations in the first 24 hours of the application of the tban. Oooof. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I consider it a blessing that none of them were in mainspace. I hope he heeds the warning. My own experience, when I gave a really clear "if you do this, I will block, with no further warnings" was that he did (as did Surayeproject3), which gave me some real hope. (Another one walked straight into my hammer, twice. I've come to understand that is the more typical approach in the topic area. Not a great place to learn how to edit.) -- asilvering (talk) 05:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in June 2025, with over 1,600 drafts awaiting review from the past two months. In addition to AfC participants, all administrators and new page patrollers can help review using the Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!
hi, i'm so sorry😪. i'm still wrong. but i have a request, please delete the article-discussion on wp:an, i understood it a long time ago, and then i saw your request to block me. i'm a newbie, i registered literally today, although i've been using it for a long time. anyway, i apologize again, please delete that discussion on wp:an ROGER DEACON (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User page and glamorous clubs
Hello, Hammersoft. I've just seen your user page. It is very interesting, and I agree with pretty well everything you say. However, I think the example you give of vandalism lasting a long time probably isn't a good one. The expression "glamour club" does exist in relation to football clubs, as you can see in these examples: [5][6][7][8], and I don't see any reason to suppose the word was not used in good faith. I have very occasionally seen cases of vandalism remaining in place for years, and it would be good to replace your example with a more unambiguously correct one, but unfortunately I can't suggest one. JBW (talk) 09:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For taking care of that unblock request. I really should have been able to recognize AI-generated text when, in retrospect, it was obvious. Still, though, thank you. JeffSpaceman (talk) 00:12, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No worries :) We're human, not AIs, which of course makes us far superior. We're just not perfect. Thanks for the barnstar! --Hammersoft (talk) 00:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kazama16: I've deleted it under WP:CSD#F1. Just so you know; rather than upload a second copy, you can move the file yourself. There's a "move" button above the file that allows you to do this. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:38, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reminds me of Steven Spielberg trying to get John Williams to do the music for Schindler's List; John, on understanding the breadth of the undertaking, "Steven, I don't think I can do this." Steven: "I know. The ones who can are dead." --Hammersoft (talk) 23:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
good answer, thank you! - right now four names on my user page, and the one in the story the saddest - I would have liked the Duke for a sample to listen to but then found "Comfort ye" (of all texts), with the conductor who had fascinated me in concert here --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reverting my WP:NPA change. I remember trying to get to WP:NPA#WHATIS and seeing that it didn't redirect to the specific section. So I went to the page's shortcut box, clicked, and saw it was indeed only redirecting to Wikipedia:No personal attacks. What I didn't notice at the time was that this was not a redirect for WP:NPA#WHATIS, it was just plain WP:NPA (apparently the # gets you to the corresponding anchor and there is no dedicated redirect for WP:NPA#WHATIS). Of course it works for me now, so perhaps there was a typo before or it wasn't all caps when I assumed there was an error. Thanks again. —Bagumba (talk) 01:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What?? An administrator who can make three mistakes in 24 hours??? Where's the button to open an ArbCom case? JBW (talk) 23:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious because I'm new to wikipedia, and eager to learn. I made an edit on two completely unrelated articles—articles that haven't been edited for years—, but you managed to find both of my edits instantly and correct both of them? How? Aquafina19.9 (talk) 02:49, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Around 109,638 users have edited wikipedia in the last month. Are you suggesting that every of those 100,000 edits made have been reviewed personally by a contributor such as yourself? Aquafina19.9 (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly possible. There's plenty of robust vandalism checking tools, and even bots that go around checking for vandalism. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator elections will take place this month. Administrator elections are an alternative to RFA that is a gentler process for candidates due to secret voting and multiple people running together. The call for candidates is July 9–15, the discussion phase is July 18–22, and the voting phase is July 23–29. Get ready to submit your candidacy, or (with their consent) to nominate a talented candidate!
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm not going to keep arguing this. You placed a citation in a header as I noted above and in the edit summary. I'm sorry if this isn't clear to you. And once again we're going around in circles. If you have nothing new to add, this discussion is closed. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:38, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Following a request for comment, there is a new policy outlining the granting of permissions to view the IP addresses of temporary accounts. Temporary account deployment on the English Wikipedia is currently scheduled for September 2025, and editors can request access to the permission ahead of time. Admins are encouraged to keep an eye on the request page; there will likely be a flood of editors requesting the permission when they realize they can no longer see IP addresses.
South Asia (WP:CT/SA) is designated a contentious topic. The topic area is specifically defined as All pages related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups.
Wikimania 2025 is happening in Nairobi, Kenya, and online from August 6 to August 9. This year marks 20 years of Wikimania. Interested users can join the online event. Registration for the virtual event is free and will remain open throughout Wikimania. You can register here now.
Damn! That's seriously impressive! I wish I had one of those! More seriously; do be careful. This project has a seriously bad habit of going after people who have been here a long time. The more you edit, the more there's dirt for people to pull out of 15, 20, 25 year old archives to throw together as a 'pattern' of abuse. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:03, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Today's story - short version: ten years ago we had a DYK about a soprano who sang in concerts with me in the choir, - longer: I found today a youtube of an aria she sang with us then, recorded the same year, - if you still have time: our performances were the weekend before the Iraq war ultimatum, and we sang Dona nobis pacem (and the drummer drummed!) as if they could hear us in Washington. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:41, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to bring your attention to this user (linking external) who tripped this filter earlier. I found it odd that the editor would have happened to stumble across the blocked editor's userpage by coincidence. And given their current talk page, fake-block template, it looked suspicious. Nubzor[T][C]20:17, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I reverted this change by a non-EC user, as well as a previous change they made at the same page a couple of days ago. They've also moved at least one page back to mainspace after you had moved it to draft space. You previously blocked them for making edits to articles under ECR, so I felt this might be of interest to you. Take care --tony14:38, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC is open on whether use of emojis with no encyclopedic value in mainspace and draftspace (e.g., at the start of paragraphs or in place of bullet points) should be added as a criterion under G15.
An RfC is in progress to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
I would go the AfD route. I'm troubled by the origin of this article too. While not a confirmed sockpuppet, it's clear it's at least a meatpuppet if not a sock off another IP net. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's absolutely ridiculous that you have the power to unilaterally lock a contentious page despite numerous objections and valid criticisms, and then at the same time casually admit you don't really care to monitor the page. You should not have this power. 2601:840:8100:3E60:EDBE:F03D:E3A4:7814 (talk) 13:52, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The power to unilaterally protect a page is part of the toolset administrators have on the project. If you feel administrators shouldn't have the power to unilaterally protect pages, then I recommend you make a proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), and mention the proposal in appropriate places such as WT:RFA and WT:ADMIN. While some people objected to the protection, others endorsed it including other administrators. A request to unprotect the page was denied [12], but you are welcome to make another request for unprotection or reduction in protection at WP:RFUP. Lastly, I never said I wasn't going to monitor the page...in fact I said exactly the opposite [13][14][15]. You are welcome to make accusations against me, but if you do so please make sure your facts are correct. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:23, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.png){kind=link}
