Encyclopedia > Wikipedia talk:Protected page

Article Content

Wikipedia talk:Protected page

Wouldn't it make sense to protect this page? (The article, of course, not this talk page.) After all, anyone who can change the protected status of a page could edit it anyway, right? -- John Owens 00:15 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

But they forget, so people like you can remind them. -º¡º

But that could be done just as well on this page, even better I'd think, even if it didn't exist half an hour ago. Seems to make more sense having the page just list those which are, and this Talk: page for requests for change.

And BTW, I'm more one of the "them" of your sentence than the "people like you". ;) -- John Owens 00:29 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

Why protect this article? Removing a page from the list does not automatically unprotect it, so that is not particularly harmful. - Patrick 00:50 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

I agree - leave this article unprotected. Martin

Why? So that someone (like me) can go and see an accurate list of protected pages, to see where contraversy may lie. I think it should be autogenerated when a page is converted into protected status, but I don't know how the back-end of wiki works.

~ender 2003-04-14 02:08 MST

~ender: I think you may be misunderstanding, "protecting" only means that only sysops can edit it, it doesn't mean no one else can see it, which is what it sounds like you're thinking. -- John Owens 09:03 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

I understand "protecting", but if you allow anyone to edit the list, then it's hard to know what's *really* protected. If you just load up the page (and don't check the history, which a casual web-user of the wiki will not know, you don't know which parts of the wiki to go looking at (ie: disputed pages).

Maybe it would be better if just the List_of_protected_pages[?] were protected, and the description of protected pages was open for editing.

~ender 2003-04-14 02:23 MST

Oh, I thought you meant "why protect it?", I see how you meant that now. Gotcha. -- John Owens 09:22 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

Confusion reigns. Nonetheless, I don't think that *any* page should be protected unless there is a compelling reason to do so. What compelling reason would we have here? I agree, completely, that the list of protected pages should be generated automatically so that we had instant and up-to-date reports on what was protected, but until then we just have to make do. -º¡º

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump

Please unprotect the following pages:

 GNU FDL
 Wikipedia:Copyrights
 Wikipedia:Naming conventions
 Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines
 Wikipedia:Policy on permanent deletion of pages

Thank you. -º¡º

The first two can't be -- in fact they should be locked to all edits, even sysops. Please sign with a name composed of letters that can be read and pronounced. -- Tarquin 16:35 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)

When you say that the first two "can't", what do you mean? Are you saying that there is some sort of technical bug in the wikisoftware that prevents these two from being unprotected, or are you just expressing your opinion? My request for all five of the above to be unprotected still stands. Regarding my signature, I have already changed it once specifically at your request, and I am happy with it as is. -º¡º

It can't be edited because unlike most articles in Wiki it is imported from an existing work (the GNU project), not created by Wikis. And if it could be edited a user could change the license for the entire site - not good. User:Cgs 21:34, April 10 2003, BST

The text of the GDFL can't be edited. That's why can't. -- Tarquin 19:56 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)

Those are nice factoids, Cgs and Tarquin, but they are irrelevant to my request. You seem to be assuming that one of the above links contains the GFDL when in fact none of them do. Since that is not an issue, will someone kindly unprotect them? -º¡º

GNU FDL should go to the article on that rather than our policy page -- I've done that. I'll leave the other matters for the other sysops to deal with. I don't like talking to squiggles. tarquin out. -- Tarquin 22:07 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)

Well, gee, thanks I guess. That was the exact edit I was going to make to that page had you unprotected it as I requested. God forbid a mere mortal should deign to improve a page watched over by the almighty Tarquin. I'll post the rest of my request again below. -º¡º

I believe that the GNU FDL redirect page was protected because the "please note" section underneath the edit box linked to GNU FDL., so if someone changed the redirect it could have legal consequences. The text under the edit box now links directly to Wikipedia:Copyrights, so I think it can now be unprotected. Have I missed something? Martin

The link at the bottom of every page goes to GNU FDL. Should it go to Wikipedia:Copyrights as well? --Brion 23:30 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)

Oops! Yes, it should do. I changed the redirect for the time being, because of that. When the link at the bottom of the page is changed, the redirect can be changed and unprotected. Martin

sounds like a good idea. We could linkify the "GFDL" text at the foot of the edit box too. -- Tarquin 09:50 Apr 11, 2003 (UTC) (thanks for the sarcasm, squiggle.)

Tarquin has addressed one of my issues, but the remaining still exist. Will someone please unprotect the following pages:

 Wikipedia:Copyrights
 (See below)
 Wikipedia:Naming conventions
 done
 Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines
 done
 Wikipedia:Policy on permanent deletion of pages
 done

Thank you. -º¡º

Wikipedia:Copyrights sets out the legal terms of use for this site. As such, we're a little finicky about it. ;) That one stays protected. --Brion 23:04 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for those three. -º¡º

End of moved text

I'd like to unprotect user:Lir - the dispute over this page is old now, so it might as well go. Objections? Martin 15:04 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

I sort of have an objection. In theory at least Lir can't edit the page - her account has been blocked and it's been made clear that she is not welcome to edit under any user name. I know she has been editing under other names, but officially at least she is no longer a contributor. And I don't see any reason for anyone else to edit her page. Personally I would think it should be deleted rather than unprotected (along with the user pages of other banned users). But on the principle of only protecting where really necessary, I guess it should be unprotected. -- sannse 15:22 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

It has been done.

Regards deleting the pages of banned users... I think that replacing them with a simple notice of the ban is a reasonable approach. That allows the banned user to retrieve hir text from the history, should sie desire to do so. It also makes it easier for a banned user to rejoin the community once their ban has timed out.

Yes, that makes more sense. -- sannse 21:03 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

Buddha suggested that Text of the GNU Free Documentation License should be protected, which is a redirect. I've done so (just in case it's a legal issue), but I'd like to hear his reasons... Martin 20:51 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

If (and only if) we accept the assumption that the text of the GFDL is not free for editing and modification by wikipedians.
And if (and only if) we accept the precedent set at GNU FDL that copyright related redirects should be protected.
Then, it follows that the redirect in question may be one which should be protected.

Also, comparing the list of what was claimed to be protected both before and after my latest major revision will show that the previous list was in error and my edit (and actions) were an attempt to correct it. -º¡º

The GNU FDL link is a little more important because it's at the bottom of every page - "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License". There could be legal implications if that permission grant was maliciously changed (for example to "copyright AOL"). Perhaps I'm just legally paranoid? Hmm... Martin

At this point, I've lost track of exactly what the question is. -º¡º

What's all this about legal worries about the page wikipedia:designated agent? that makes no sense to me whatsoever. explain, please? Koyaanis Qatsi

I have no idea - I think it was mav who protected it originally... Martin

I asked if it might be protected on User talk:Jimbo Wales. It is a disclaimer that is required under the DMCA OCILLA provisions. It is really a copyright notice. There is a designated agent page in Wikipedia. See also: Wikipedia talk:Designated agent for the explanation.Alex756 12:35 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

Moved from article body by Dante Alighieri on 19:21 20 Jun 2003 (UTC):

The following images were downloaded by a user who refuses to give any guarantee that they are free of copyright. As he consistently removed requests for information from his page with abusive responses, I protected these pages to ensure the messages left on their pages saying these images had been listed for deletion and should not be reinstated in pages prior to the establishment of their copyright status can not be removed, as I suspect this user, going by past behaviour, if he could would try to remove the statement, reinstate images on the pages and insist he didn't know he should not do so. FearÉIREANN 17:35 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The above statement by the person going by the user name: [[FearÉIREANN contains falsehoods and has abused their powers as a Wikipedia Administrator by protecting pages in which they were involved as part of the discussion. This is unacceptable conduct, and demonstrates the strong reluctance and lengthy delay by other Administrators in trusting this user with Administrator powers. I believe that a sincere and always polite User:Ed Poor set an excellent example of honorable conduct when he made only one mistake and abused his Administrative powers. Joe Canuck 19:09 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

If your "new" hwo the hell do you know what Ed Poor is like??? answer me that... -fonzy

As Joe Canuck has been banned, all images and pages protected to stop his insertions of potentially copyright images have been unprotected. FearÉIREANN 20:39 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License

Search Encyclopedia

Search over one million articles, find something about almost anything!