Template talk:Vprotected

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 {{Vprotected}} is protected at the moment. Use {{Editprotected}} on this page to propose an edit.  


Protection templates
Articles: Dispute | Dispute 2 | Vandalism | High traffic | Deleted (permanent)
Templates: High-use (permanent)
User talk: Vandalism | Vandalism (semi) | Vandalism (IP) | {{unblock}} abuse
General: Semi | Semi 2 | Privacy | Office action +/-
Main page images: General | Temp from Commons | Temporary cropped thumbnail
Other: Page moves | Talk (deleted) | Talk (spambot) | Stub types (deleted) | User | Blocked user

Contents

[edit] Older discussions

Thank you. Temporary protection should ease the election day fuss a bit. -- Kizor 19:51, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

A proposal to unify message boxes. See Template_talk:Protected for the proposal. --Cantus 02:42, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Standardized box

To save whoever's going to change this box to the same as the accuracy, neutrality and protected boxes the work (and because I have nothing better to do), here's a copy of what could be the box that replaces the current one here: Neonumbers 11:04, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is protected from editing to deal with vandalism.
Please discuss any proposed changes on this article's talk page.

[edit] Unprotect please

Please unprotect. I would like to make use of the new template (see above). —Cantus…☎ 04:16, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. -- Ec5618 17:37, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with his request --Hoovernj 04:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] See also

{{Suggestprotect}} -- Zondor 00:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

please mention this as a see also. -- Zondor 09:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New template is awful

The new template is awful. Please can we revert it - it looks horrid, especially on Firefox! --Dawn16 13:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for a "warning" template

I think there is scope for a middle-ground between the normal state of affairs and entirely protecting an article. Articles that are currently or frequently the target of vandalism or extreme POV injection (e.g., George W. Bush) should have a header warning the user that the article is subject to this kind of defacement. This would only be effective in warning the reader that they may be reading a vandalised page if the warning itself were not removable, and I don't know whether this can be implemented with the MediaWiki software, for instance a flag on the article that creates a warning header that isn't actually part of the editable page text.

Ideally, it should point to the "history" page, advising (perhaps in a separate page) the user to compare several recent versions of the article in order to establish the credibility of any particular piece of information on the page. If the history page could highlight an edit that was done by an Administrator, then that would be better; ideal would be if the template could contain a generated link to the last edit made by an Administrator, which is likely to be an 'rv'. — PhilHibbs | talk 14:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Smaller?

Can't we make this template smaller, just like we did with {{Sprotected}}? I like the new format, and that way, we can have a uniform look between all the protection templates. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

closed -- Zondor 09:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{editprotected}}

please mention you can use {{editprotected}}. -- Zondor 09:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the editprotected on the new template damages it. --Sunfazer (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute

I think the wording violates NPOV since it's not always vandalizm when a page is protected. Ardenn 18:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

There's template:protected for good-faith disputes. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request to have sort key added

Please add a sort key to the category. The following

[[Category:Article header templates]]

should change to

[[Category:Article header templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]

– Doug Bell talk•contrib 08:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. howcheng {chat} 17:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Suggestprotect link

Just to note, the Template:Suggestprotect link is broken because it was deleted, so it should probably be removed now. -- Mithent 19:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe add {{editprotected}} to request clean up of bogus protected pages

-- Omniplex 02:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request to add category for protection templates

Please add Category:Protection templates immediately after </includeonly> like this
...</includeonly><noinclude>
[[Category:Protection templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]
</noinclude>

-- Omniplex 23:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. --CBDunkerson 02:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Omniplex 00:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please unprotect this template for a while

I just want to reformat it better! Damnit --Col. Hauler 09:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. --CBDunkerson 00:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect / titled-click icon

Please bypass a redirect from Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism to Wikipedia:Vandalism. -- ADNghiem501 02:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Also please add:

<div style="right:50px; top:26px; display:none;" class="metadata topicon" id="sprotect-icon">{{Titled-click |
| image =Padlock.svg
| title = Editing of this page by non-administrators is presently disabled.
| link = wikipedia:protection policy
| width = 16px
| height = 16px
}}</div>

to the top of the template, and remove the lock icon from the layout. This part of source can be both found at Template:Protected and Template:Sprotected. -- ADNghiem501 01:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Please cease this second edit, since a non-monobook skin has been removed from those pages that have still been disputed. -- ADNghiem501 16:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
OK I just bypassed the redirect (why is that so useful?). I didn't do the icon thing as requested.--Commander Keane 17:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/p/r/Template_talk%7EVprotected_c626.html"