Talk:Pauley Perrette
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
I semi-protected the article, but I'm clueless and don't know what template I'm supposed to add or what else it is that I'm supposed to do. :(--Jimbo Wales 01:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Let's leave it semi-protected
I see no reason to unprotect it, because I see every reason that the same troll will come back and do the same thing again.--Jimbo Wales 21:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Well it looks like user:SlimVirgin added a banner saying this article is sprotected but it also looks like the sprotected was removed a few days ago, I was going to remove the banner but I confused about what has happened. --Chinakow 23:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- User:Jimbo Wales semi-protected it again today. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I know this isn't the right place to raise a general policy question, but do we really need to have a template on every semi-protected article? This article serves as a good example -- it isn't controversial at all, it isn't likely to need a lot of attention from anons (a somewhat famous actress but not like a major major superstar level of fame), and we know that there's a vandal waiting to vandalize if we un-semi-protect it. The template makes it seem like it's more controversial than it actually is. (To my knowledge, it isn't a controversial article at all.)--Jimbo Wales 18:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- Well, the right place would be WT:SEMI. Basically, it seems like we have a situation here where we are already keeping this article protected against policy — semi-protection is explicitly "not intended for pre-emptive protection of articles that might get vandalized", and articles are not supposed to be permanently semi-protected. That said, I'm in the camp that says you can do whatever seems best to you, Jimbo. I would suggest leaving some tag on it, but maybe customizing it to be more applicable to the situation here. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- I suggest this discussion be continued at Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy.
- Here's a thought to take with you: A group of people band together and vandalise a random article. At this point, we could semi-protect it, at which point the vandals would be free to move on to another article. We could never unprotect an article, because the vandals would quickly notice and return. In the end, this would create an ever growing set of articles that are constantly semi-protected, defeating part of the purpose of Wikipedia.
- In my opinion, this deserves discussion. But not here. -- Ec5618 19:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- You raise a very good question, what is the purpose of Wikipedia? Hall Monitor 23:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- Just wanted to answer Jimbo's question. I monitor the protected pages list. Without the tags, it's almost impossible for me to keep that list current. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- You raise a very good question, what is the purpose of Wikipedia? Hall Monitor 23:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I'm working on the assumption that we're following Wikipedia policies, but I do believe Jimbo does get some sort of "veto" power. Permanent semi-protection is not an option. If it's one dedicated vandal, block his IP. If he uses multiple ips to sustain a major attack on the page, semi-protect it. But it still should be removed regularly to make sure there is a current threat level to the page. Just my two cents. --kizzle 19:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
