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.
Hello, Bilby. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi. I can see that you tagged the article that i created for being created or edited in return for undisclosed payments. Well, i would like to say that i was not paid for it. Can i delete the tag? Wammaw88 (talk) 11:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reminding me. I will look into this further and see how best to handle it. btw, can you explain why you created the article? And can you also let me know what accounts you have used previously? - Bilby (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello ! I'm contacting you because you did recently changed protection setting of the "teahouse". The protection you put is anymore in force now but JJMC89 put another protection
I'd like to know if you have the possibility to protect this page for longer than some hours.
For me , the vandal is probably an isolated person. I think the vandal is maybe using bots that haven't an advanced level of disruption.
Therefore , I think it could be sufficient to semi-protect the page longer than some hours.
I'm not an administrator like you because I'm only an auto-confirmed user.
I think the vandal is particulary motivated if he's not using bots.
I think a debate have to be organised about semi-protect the teahouse permanently or longer than some hours. Anatole-berthe (talk) 09:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen the discussion. That's why I wanted to try blocks and reverts to see if that was a better option. The problem is that there were at least 40 reverts. 40 reverts. That's as many as four tens. And that's terrible. It is also terrible to protect the Teahouse and to prevent people from asking questions. At this stage I am doing research into other options, as I never enjoy the feeling of being caught between Scylla and Charybdis. - Bilby (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think also it is horrible to protect the Teahouse and to prevent people from asking questions.
If the Teahouse have to be protected permanently. It's problematic , but I fear there are no another possibility for the moment.
When I'm taking part in defending the Teahouse. I use time than I could use to do more usefull stuff on Wikipedia.
Many time on this day , when I wanted to revert vandalisms. I had the message below :
"The edit appears to have already been undone. You may have attempted to undo a page move, protection action or import action; these cannot be undone this way. Any autoconfirmed user can move the page back to its previous location, and any administrator can modify or remove protection."
I consider this is a positive thing to see this message because it show the Teahouse have a sufficient number of defenders for the moment.
Defenders like us are there. Each of us is necessary. I'm far to be the best of them because I'm not the fastest.
Defend is boring but have to be done if we don't semi-protect the page or find an alternative solution but I don't know which.
