Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Unsigned messages will likely be removed. For messages left here, I will usually respond here. If I leave a message on your talk page, I will watch for a response there.
Start a new talk topic.
ok ill stop i was only havin a laugh calm down man :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.1.158 (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not the place to "have a laugh". pcuser42 (talk) 09:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely crazy. There is NOT excessive vandalism. There's a hell of a lot of people, working hard on it - including a load of new users.
There is a tiny, tiny fraction of vandalism - all of which was quite happily being swiftly removed.
Please reconsider - quickly. Thanks, Chzz ► 04:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Now, instead of working on improving articles, we're arguing over prot, merge, AfD, article names, etc.
- I see absolutely no justification in protection. It's a panic measure, just because the article is being edited lots. Isn't lots of edits a good thing? I've seen almost no vandalism. Chzz ► 04:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In the three minutes before I protected it, it was vandalized four times by four different IPs, an amount I would consider excessive. I'm a strong believer in unprotection whenever possible, but I just don't think it's feasible in this situation. I fully expect the protection to be lengthened in the near future, although not by me. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please show me the evidence of vandalism; also, please consider it in percentage terms, not just time-wise. No, scratch that, let's not bother arguing. I don't want to bother discussing it; I want to help make the article better. Instead...- I'm sorry, but I feel very strongly about this. You're preventing lots of new users from helping improve Wikipedia, just because of a tiny, tiny number of vandals. And, all vandalism is being removed, within seconds. Please consider the bigger picture. If not...so be it. It's a great, great pity. Chzz ► 04:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not workable. If you can find an admin willing to unprotect the article, they can do so with my blessing, but my prediction would be utter chaos and reprotection within the hour. This is a high-profile and high-activity article, and semiprotection is eminently justified. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's perfectly 'workable' - there were hundreds of edits, and the vast majority were good. Lots of good users were working on the article - and, they still are. Sadly, later, it will be too late - the moment will have passed. Who knows how many new editors were put off Wikipedia because they couldn't edit the article? We cannot tell. But I can demonstrate that, if it had not been semi'd, any vandalism would've been gone in moments. It's a panic measure, and totally unnecessary. I won't go begging to other admins, because admins do not like to revert actions of other admins - which is quite reasonable. But, this is an argument for another time and place; it's too busy right now. Best, Chzz ► 05:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I highly value the contributions of new and anonymous editors, but not every article needs to be a new editor training ground. I am firmly convinced that semiprotection is in the best interests of both the article and the project as a whole, based on the observable evidence in the 23 minutes that the article was live and unprotected. I can assure you that I did not protect the article out of sheer panic - I very rarely panic while editing Wikipedia. Semiprotection is a necessary evil, and this is exactly the type of situation it was designed to handle. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A brief check shows;
7 good
2 vandalism (1 ip user; "ratemypoo")
Reverted within 1 minute
4 good
1 questionable "your welcome tania" (misplaced? others by ip seem good faith) (removed 1 min later)
9 good (some were re. PROD; but also an IP added cats)
1 vandalism (IP; "HE'S DEAD YO!!!! HE'S IN HELL!")
Reverted within 1 minute
4 good
1 vandalism ("They touched his wiener for good measure")
Reverted within 1 minute
1 vandalism ("May he rot in Hell for Eternity.")
Reverted within 1 minute
3 good
1 dubious "Lasith Malinga clenaed him up"
- Protected -
So which part of the protection policy warrants protection? Is that "significant but temporary vandalism or disruption"? There is no evidence of IP-hopping.
So what was the benefit of this protection? It stopped the article saying "HE'S DEAD!!" for a few seconds.
We know that thousands of people looked at the article. We know that many have added comments on the talk page. What we don't know is, how many people might have edited the article if it had not been semi-protected.
Your comment that not every article needs to be a new editor training ground goes against the fundamental principle that "anyone can edit". Every article is a training ground - at least, every article is an opportunity to help, advise, guide and encourage editors. Chzz ► 07:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your view is idealistic, but unrealistic. There is no chance of me unprotecting it. Article protection is an inexact science - it almost always requires some degree of admin discretion, as is the case here. If you honestly believe that my judgment is that far off the mark, perhaps you should seek some outside opinions on one of the noticeboards. As I've said before, any other admin is free to remove the protection with my blessing if they feel I have acted incorrectly or with undue haste. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think your judgement is in accord with current norms; so yes, I suppose I'm questioning those, really. So no - it's not you as such; you happened to act on this one, which is why I landed here to discuss it. I'm not suggesting you did anything way-off-base, no - and if you hadn't done it, I imagine someone else would have. At the specific time it happened, it frustrated me, but I knew it was inevitable.
- I don't think I'm an idealist. My fear is, that the people who decide things such as this are the very people who are much more exposed to the nasty side of Wikipedia - and thus, it is quite natural to become jaded, and frustrated, and feel a need to lock things down. There is a balance between preventing vandalism and allowing anyone to edit; I think we're focusing too much on the negative, and sometimes forgetting all the positive side, the building of an Encyclopaedia.
- It's a particular concern recently, with all the reports about the number of users (particularly new users) falling.
- If you had not protected it - and (totally hypothetical) nobody else had... do you think that the article right now would be better, worse, or about the same? Unfortunately, we have no way to know; but I think it might've improved a little quicker. We'd not have had all those many requests for edits on the talk page (which took time away from editing the article), plus we might've had new editors. Chzz ► 09:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A week on, do you still think it needs protection? Chzz ► 13:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No. The article has remained pretty stable since the semiprotection expired. Although there is still some occasional vandalism, it hasn't been particularly problematic at all. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um hi. Could you give us a REASON, please? She WILL be famous someday, and recording her teenage life should NOT be considered vandalism. So.... WHY?! You hater. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diassie (talk • contribs) 08:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. The exact reasoning is outlined here, but it's also important to keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It's great that you want to contribute, but it's usually not a good idea to write about your friends. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, why you gotta revert perfectly accurate edits? Jamko31 (talk) 05:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
re your block of 125.162.150.88 - why no block of TreasuryTag?
Why is it considered appropriate to revert this user's edits? pablo 08:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The IP user exceeded WP:3RR, TreasuryTag didn't. The three-revert rule is binding no matter which side is "right". --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed it is, Your block is for "edit warring", however, which TreasuryTag clearly took part in. And reverting a user's edits for no reason surely deserves some sort of mention. But then again, maybe you don't consider that necessary. Just another anon, after all. pablo 08:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't block the IP because I hate anons. I did it because this particular IP earned it. If I am wrong, then the user's unblock request will certainly be swiftly accepted. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't suggesting that. Just that TT (and Dayewalker's reverts of the IP were groundless, and if not blockworthy, deserve at least a bollocking. pablo 09:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help with restoring the page on Netley Abbey, today's main page featured article. The page seems to be under concerted attacks by vandals. Is there anything that can be done to protect it? best wishes, Soph (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
