HRWiki talk:Protected page - Revision history

It's dot com: /* Wrong protection */ striking out one

It's dot com — Sun, 05 Mar 2006 22:46:55 GMT

Wrong protection: striking out one

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:46, 5 March 2006
Line 87:		Line 87:
	*<s>[[Coach Z's Team]]</s>		*<s>[[Coach Z's Team]]</s>
	*[[User:Homestar Coder/sig]]		*[[User:Homestar Coder/sig]]
-	*[[Template:recentchangesnotice]]	+	*<s>[[Template:recentchangesnotice]]</s>
	*[[User:Jay/sig]]		*[[User:Jay/sig]]
	*[[User talk:Jay/Archive]]		*[[User talk:Jay/Archive]]
Line 97:		Line 97:

	::If you think the reason that sysops protect pages is because it is "fun," then you would be wrong. Nowhere in my reply above did I say anything about it being "fun." Please re-read my reply and if you have any questions, please ask them here. -- [[User:Tom\|Tom]] 15:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)		::If you think the reason that sysops protect pages is because it is "fun," then you would be wrong. Nowhere in my reply above did I say anything about it being "fun." Please re-read my reply and if you have any questions, please ask them here. -- [[User:Tom\|Tom]] 15:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
		+	:::The recent changes notice should not be in the list above. It plugs directly into several MediaWiki-namespace pages and is very much like [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]]. It should not be edited by users. — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 22:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Tom: /* Wrong protection */ Reply for Bluebry muffin.

Tom — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 15:01:48 GMT

Wrong protection: Reply for Bluebry muffin.

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:01, 1 March 2006
Line 95:		Line 95:
	:Ok, 1) Huh?<br/>		:Ok, 1) Huh?<br/>
	:2) I think I get it. Protecting pages is fun. As a sysop (Not here!), I am tempted to protect things. Ima not care anymore. {{User:Bluebry muffin/sig}} 04:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)		:2) I think I get it. Protecting pages is fun. As a sysop (Not here!), I am tempted to protect things. Ima not care anymore. {{User:Bluebry muffin/sig}} 04:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
		+
		+	::If you think the reason that sysops protect pages is because it is "fun," then you would be wrong. Nowhere in my reply above did I say anything about it being "fun." Please re-read my reply and if you have any questions, please ask them here. -- [[User:Tom\|Tom]] 15:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Bluebry: /* Wrong protection */ I get it

Bluebry — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 04:39:00 GMT

Wrong protection: I get it

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:39, 1 March 2006
Line 93:		Line 93:
	*[[User:Thunderbird L17/Siggie]]		*[[User:Thunderbird L17/Siggie]]
	All of these fall within our current guidelines. Please note that the list of reasons [http://www.hrwiki.org/index.php?title=HRWiki:Protected_page&oldid=246230 currently] given on [[HRWiki:Protected page]] is not exhaustive. Sysops may use their discretion to protect pages as they see fit. See also {{tl\|mprotected}} and {{tl\|vprotected}}. -- [[User:Tom\|Tom]] 08:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)		All of these fall within our current guidelines. Please note that the list of reasons [http://www.hrwiki.org/index.php?title=HRWiki:Protected_page&oldid=246230 currently] given on [[HRWiki:Protected page]] is not exhaustive. Sysops may use their discretion to protect pages as they see fit. See also {{tl\|mprotected}} and {{tl\|vprotected}}. -- [[User:Tom\|Tom]] 08:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
		+	:Ok, 1) Huh?<br/>
		+	:2) I think I get it. Protecting pages is fun. As a sysop (Not here!), I am tempted to protect things. Ima not care anymore. {{User:Bluebry muffin/sig}} 04:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Tom: /* Wrong protection */ Reply.

Tom — Mon, 27 Feb 2006 08:02:36 GMT

Wrong protection: Reply.

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:02, 27 February 2006
Line 79:		Line 79:

	:::LIKE, 3 EDIT CONFLICTS: I dunno, maybe we should stick to the existing policy. {{User:Bluebry muffin/sig}} 03:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)		:::LIKE, 3 EDIT CONFLICTS: I dunno, maybe we should stick to the existing policy. {{User:Bluebry muffin/sig}} 03:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
		+
		+	So then, a list:
		+	*[[User:Drhaggis]]
		+	*[[User:Jay]]
		+	*<s>[[User:Thunderbird L17/Sysops]]</s>
		+	*[[:Image:JsJAd.PNG]]
		+	*<s>[[Coach Z's Team]]</s>
		+	*[[User:Homestar Coder/sig]]
		+	*[[Template:recentchangesnotice]]
		+	*[[User:Jay/sig]]
		+	*[[User talk:Jay/Archive]]
		+	*[[User:Kilroy/sig]]
		+	*[[User:Thunderbird L17/Siggie]]
		+	All of these fall within our current guidelines. Please note that the list of reasons [http://www.hrwiki.org/index.php?title=HRWiki:Protected_page&oldid=246230 currently] given on [[HRWiki:Protected page]] is not exhaustive. Sysops may use their discretion to protect pages as they see fit. See also {{tl\|mprotected}} and {{tl\|vprotected}}. -- [[User:Tom\|Tom]] 08:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

BazookaJoe: /* Suggestion: Semi-protect? */

BazookaJoe — Mon, 27 Feb 2006 03:21:55 GMT

Suggestion: Semi-protect?

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:21, 27 February 2006
Line 9:		Line 9:
	::::Actually, temporarily semi-protecting a page that is persistently vandalized is not a bad idea. Wikipedia does it all the time. However, we will hardly ever need to use semi-protect unless there's a spammer vandalizing the same page every X6 minutes, or if there's an anonymous AOL vandal who is persistently vandalizing the Featured Article within a short amount of time. —[[User:BazookaJoe\|BazookaJoe]] 03:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)		::::Actually, temporarily semi-protecting a page that is persistently vandalized is not a bad idea. Wikipedia does it all the time. However, we will hardly ever need to use semi-protect unless there's a spammer vandalizing the same page every X6 minutes, or if there's an anonymous AOL vandal who is persistently vandalizing the Featured Article within a short amount of time. —[[User:BazookaJoe\|BazookaJoe]] 03:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Don't forget, pages such as Strong Bad Email, often the first person to point out the new Strong Bad Email is an IP number, or a rare contributor. Semi-protecting it would probably slightly slow down the updates. {{User:Thunderbird L17/Siggie}} 03:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)		:::::Don't forget, pages such as Strong Bad Email, often the first person to point out the new Strong Bad Email is an IP number, or a rare contributor. Semi-protecting it would probably slightly slow down the updates. {{User:Thunderbird L17/Siggie}} 03:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
-	::::::That's not a big worry, as semi-protecting will not last very long. If a high-visibility page such as Strong Bad Email were being vandalized repeatedly in a very short amount of time, semi-protecting for only a half-hour or less would be advisable. Another page that we could have semi-protected given the ability is [[Help:Contents]], to prevent the auto-spamming in October 2005. That semi-protection would have been more prolonged, but it would have been effective. And also, for a big small <small>(intentional use of "big small")</small> wiki like this, semi-protecting our [[Template:whatsnew]] and featured articles (from anonnys AND new users) would be super-fantastic. —[[User:BazookaJoe\|BazookaJoe]] 03:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)	+	::::::That's not a big worry, as semi-protecting will not last very long. If a high-visibility page such as Strong Bad Email were being vandalized repeatedly in a very short amount of time, semi-protecting for only a half-hour or less would be advisable. Another page that we could have semi-protected given the ability is [[Help:Contents]], to prevent the auto-spamming in October 2005. That semi-protection would have been more prolonged, but it would have been effective. And also, for a big small <small>(intentional use of "big small")</small> wiki like this, semi-protecting our [[Template:whatsnew]] and featured articles (from anonnys AND new users) would be super-fantastic. Something like this might require a bit of extension writing from It's dot com. —[[User:BazookaJoe\|BazookaJoe]] 03:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

	== problem on teh SB e-mail page ==		== problem on teh SB e-mail page ==

BazookaJoe: /* Suggestion: Semi-protect? */

BazookaJoe — Mon, 27 Feb 2006 03:21:02 GMT

Suggestion: Semi-protect?

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:21, 27 February 2006
Line 9:		Line 9:
	::::Actually, temporarily semi-protecting a page that is persistently vandalized is not a bad idea. Wikipedia does it all the time. However, we will hardly ever need to use semi-protect unless there's a spammer vandalizing the same page every X6 minutes, or if there's an anonymous AOL vandal who is persistently vandalizing the Featured Article within a short amount of time. —[[User:BazookaJoe\|BazookaJoe]] 03:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)		::::Actually, temporarily semi-protecting a page that is persistently vandalized is not a bad idea. Wikipedia does it all the time. However, we will hardly ever need to use semi-protect unless there's a spammer vandalizing the same page every X6 minutes, or if there's an anonymous AOL vandal who is persistently vandalizing the Featured Article within a short amount of time. —[[User:BazookaJoe\|BazookaJoe]] 03:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Don't forget, pages such as Strong Bad Email, often the first person to point out the new Strong Bad Email is an IP number, or a rare contributor. Semi-protecting it would probably slightly slow down the updates. {{User:Thunderbird L17/Siggie}} 03:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)		:::::Don't forget, pages such as Strong Bad Email, often the first person to point out the new Strong Bad Email is an IP number, or a rare contributor. Semi-protecting it would probably slightly slow down the updates. {{User:Thunderbird L17/Siggie}} 03:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
-	::::::That's not a big worry, as semi-protecting will not last very long. If a high-visibility page such as Strong Bad Email were being vandalized repeatedly in a very short amount of time, semi-protecting for only a half-hour or less would be advisable. Another page that we could have semi-protected given the ability is [[Help:Contents]], to prevent the auto-spamming in October 2005. That semi-protection would have been more prolonged, but it would have been effective. —[[User:BazookaJoe\|BazookaJoe]] 03:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)	+	::::::That's not a big worry, as semi-protecting will not last very long. If a high-visibility page such as Strong Bad Email were being vandalized repeatedly in a very short amount of time, semi-protecting for only a half-hour or less would be advisable. Another page that we could have semi-protected given the ability is [[Help:Contents]], to prevent the auto-spamming in October 2005. That semi-protection would have been more prolonged, but it would have been effective. And also, for a big small <small>(intentional use of "big small")</small> wiki like this, semi-protecting our [[Template:whatsnew]] and featured articles (from anonnys AND new users) would be super-fantastic. —[[User:BazookaJoe\|BazookaJoe]] 03:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

	== problem on teh SB e-mail page ==		== problem on teh SB e-mail page ==

BazookaJoe: /* Suggestion: Semi-protect? */

BazookaJoe — Mon, 27 Feb 2006 03:16:35 GMT

Suggestion: Semi-protect?

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:16, 27 February 2006
Line 9:		Line 9:
	::::Actually, temporarily semi-protecting a page that is persistently vandalized is not a bad idea. Wikipedia does it all the time. However, we will hardly ever need to use semi-protect unless there's a spammer vandalizing the same page every X6 minutes, or if there's an anonymous AOL vandal who is persistently vandalizing the Featured Article within a short amount of time. —[[User:BazookaJoe\|BazookaJoe]] 03:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)		::::Actually, temporarily semi-protecting a page that is persistently vandalized is not a bad idea. Wikipedia does it all the time. However, we will hardly ever need to use semi-protect unless there's a spammer vandalizing the same page every X6 minutes, or if there's an anonymous AOL vandal who is persistently vandalizing the Featured Article within a short amount of time. —[[User:BazookaJoe\|BazookaJoe]] 03:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Don't forget, pages such as Strong Bad Email, often the first person to point out the new Strong Bad Email is an IP number, or a rare contributor. Semi-protecting it would probably slightly slow down the updates. {{User:Thunderbird L17/Siggie}} 03:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)		:::::Don't forget, pages such as Strong Bad Email, often the first person to point out the new Strong Bad Email is an IP number, or a rare contributor. Semi-protecting it would probably slightly slow down the updates. {{User:Thunderbird L17/Siggie}} 03:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
		+	::::::That's not a big worry, as semi-protecting will not last very long. If a high-visibility page such as Strong Bad Email were being vandalized repeatedly in a very short amount of time, semi-protecting for only a half-hour or less would be advisable. Another page that we could have semi-protected given the ability is [[Help:Contents]], to prevent the auto-spamming in October 2005. That semi-protection would have been more prolonged, but it would have been effective. —[[User:BazookaJoe\|BazookaJoe]] 03:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

	== problem on teh SB e-mail page ==		== problem on teh SB e-mail page ==

Bluebry: /* Wrong protection */ reply

Bluebry — Mon, 27 Feb 2006 03:14:37 GMT

Wrong protection: reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:14, 27 February 2006
Line 76:		Line 76:
	:: Oh, yes. The page also does not say that those are the only reasons to protect pages. Pages can and have been protected for other reasons (to thwart specific trolls that won't stick to a single IP number, such as Coach Z's Team, for instance.) --{{User:Jay/sig}} 03:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)		:: Oh, yes. The page also does not say that those are the only reasons to protect pages. Pages can and have been protected for other reasons (to thwart specific trolls that won't stick to a single IP number, such as Coach Z's Team, for instance.) --{{User:Jay/sig}} 03:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
	<!-- :::But you do see that it is in violation of the rules sysops are supposed to uphold? {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 03:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC) RETRACTED -->		<!-- :::But you do see that it is in violation of the rules sysops are supposed to uphold? {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 03:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC) RETRACTED -->
		+
		+	:::LIKE, 3 EDIT CONFLICTS: I dunno, maybe we should stick to the existing policy. {{User:Bluebry muffin/sig}} 03:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Qermaq: /* Wrong protection */

Qermaq — Mon, 27 Feb 2006 03:14:06 GMT

Wrong protection

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:14, 27 February 2006
Line 75:		Line 75:
	:: If there was a way to make certain pages (your user name or your sig) editable only by you or, in extreme circumstances, a sysop, I'd be for it. But that's out of my hands. I can protect my own stuff in such a fashion, though, so I do. --{{User:Jay/sig}} 03:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)		:: If there was a way to make certain pages (your user name or your sig) editable only by you or, in extreme circumstances, a sysop, I'd be for it. But that's out of my hands. I can protect my own stuff in such a fashion, though, so I do. --{{User:Jay/sig}} 03:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
	:: Oh, yes. The page also does not say that those are the only reasons to protect pages. Pages can and have been protected for other reasons (to thwart specific trolls that won't stick to a single IP number, such as Coach Z's Team, for instance.) --{{User:Jay/sig}} 03:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)		:: Oh, yes. The page also does not say that those are the only reasons to protect pages. Pages can and have been protected for other reasons (to thwart specific trolls that won't stick to a single IP number, such as Coach Z's Team, for instance.) --{{User:Jay/sig}} 03:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
-	:::But you do see that it is in violation of the rules sysops are supposed to uphold? {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 03:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)	+	<!-- :::But you do see that it is in violation of the rules sysops are supposed to uphold? {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 03:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC) RETRACTED -->

Qermaq: /* Wrong protection */

Qermaq — Mon, 27 Feb 2006 03:13:11 GMT

Wrong protection

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:13, 27 February 2006
Line 75:		Line 75:
	:: If there was a way to make certain pages (your user name or your sig) editable only by you or, in extreme circumstances, a sysop, I'd be for it. But that's out of my hands. I can protect my own stuff in such a fashion, though, so I do. --{{User:Jay/sig}} 03:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)		:: If there was a way to make certain pages (your user name or your sig) editable only by you or, in extreme circumstances, a sysop, I'd be for it. But that's out of my hands. I can protect my own stuff in such a fashion, though, so I do. --{{User:Jay/sig}} 03:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
	:: Oh, yes. The page also does not say that those are the only reasons to protect pages. Pages can and have been protected for other reasons (to thwart specific trolls that won't stick to a single IP number, such as Coach Z's Team, for instance.) --{{User:Jay/sig}} 03:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)		:: Oh, yes. The page also does not say that those are the only reasons to protect pages. Pages can and have been protected for other reasons (to thwart specific trolls that won't stick to a single IP number, such as Coach Z's Team, for instance.) --{{User:Jay/sig}} 03:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
		+	:::But you do see that it is in violation of the rules sysops are supposed to uphold? {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 03:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)