(How many good anonIP edits have ever been made on Bird, Crocodile, Fossil, or the oddly popular vandalism target Turtle, for example?) J. Actually, I'd like to see a lot more articles with protection, but that's just me, and would take a change in the prevailing attitudes here. Dinoguy2 02:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Reply I like it protected. I vote for protection, for what it's worth. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Reply I agree-with maybe one or two exceptions, I can't think of any constructive IP edits to the dinosaur articles here. There is no reason to open an article to continuous vandalism from multiple IPs, especially when we are calling this article some of our best content. Dinosaur is a Featured Article, representing some of Wikipedia's best content. I could have gone back further in the history, but I didn't bother. In other words, there's no reason to unprotect this article: no IP has added anything useful to this article in months. A quick scan of the last 500 edits indicates there wasn't even a single good IP edit (every subsequent edit by a logged-in user was removal of IP vandalism). When this page isn't semi-protected, it gets a lot of IP vandalism, so I did place the page on semi-protection. It's a popular page, and particularly popular amongst school-kids. Hut 8.5 19:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Reply That's exactly right. RobbieG 19:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Reply This suggests it is quite a popular page, getting 4,000 visitors per day, so if someone's going to add nonsense it's quite likely they'll do so here. Bush and religion are only semi-protected, whilst Communism isn't protected at all) and Stephen Colbert's been nowhere near it (AFAIK, anyway). Has it been featured lately? I mean, it's not like it's a particularly controversial topic ( George W. I find it odd that it's attracting this much vandalism. Bryan Derksen 05:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Reply Looking at the history page, I can see why this is protected, but nonetheless find that slightly odd. If it's really important to keep a page protected I'd suggest making sure the case is made prominently on the talk page. Pages shouldn't be protected without a good reason so I went ahead and unprotected it. When I encountered the page I checked the edit history, the protection log, and the talk page (including the most recent archive) and found no apparent justification for protection (I share Weregerbil's opinion that a handful of vandalisms like this is not an obvious or serious problem). Weregerbil 15:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Reply That's not a particularly high amount on Wikipedia. Just days after protection is dropped vandalism has become a huge problem, should a protection request be made Mikey - "so emo, it hurts"© 15:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Reply Four vandalisms today so far. 34 Restructuring - "Classification" and "Natural History".23 Dinoglyfs & dinolits made by the ancient man.21 Fair use rationale for Image:Jurassic Park.svg.11 Kids and their parents are the big audience - why not simplify?.10 Wording of "scientific scrutiny" issue, continued.4 POV statement about not withstanding "serious scientific scrutiny.".
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |