HRWiki talk:Protected page
From Homestar Runner Wiki
(→Wrong protection) |
(→Wrong protection) |
||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
::::::[[Template:recentchangesnotice|This blank page]], which exists as the old guestbooks thing in Recent Changes. So, it's now unimportant. {{User:Bluebry muffin/sig}} 02:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC) | ::::::[[Template:recentchangesnotice|This blank page]], which exists as the old guestbooks thing in Recent Changes. So, it's now unimportant. {{User:Bluebry muffin/sig}} 02:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC) | ||
| - | You're right that they don't fit those guidelines, but why ''should'' they be unprotected | + | You're right that they don't fit those guidelines, but why ''should'' they be unprotected? For instance, why would anyone besides me have a legitimate reason to edit my User page? (And I can edit it just fine, protected or not.) --{{User:Jay/sig}} 02:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC) |
| + | :PS. I mean the User pages and sigs and images. Coach Z's Team and the "recentchangesnotice" make sense. --{{User:Jay/sig}} 02:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 02:30, 27 February 2006
Suggestion: Semi-protect?
What if we also had a semi protect for pages, so only logged in members could edit, which would reduce vandalism without removing to point of a wiki. This would be helpful on pages like Strong Bad Email, which are vandalized frequently, but also edited helpfully frequently -- nintendorulez 14:58, 12 Mar 2005 (MST)
- I don't think this is possible, and it would ruin the point of a wiki. →[[User:FireBird|FireBird]]
problem on teh SB e-mail page
under fun facts it says "strongbad has checked 163 e-mails" it should be 136, not 163. but the page is protected.
- I've unprotected the page, but I believe that is referring to the actual number of emails he has answered. In some cases, he answers more than one, such as 50 emails and spring cleaning. -- Tom 06:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Wrong protection
I've noticed some of the pages that are protected, even though they are obviously not compiant to these guidelines. Would a sysop unprotect them? If you need a list, I'll TRY and find them all. Bluebry 01:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'll take a list, thanks. -- Tom 01:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- Lemme find 'em all. Bluebry 02:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
These are all I could find, really. And um, 1) They're not high-visibility, because they're user pages 2) Not logos 3) Not Mediawiki There are the reasons for them, too. Oh, yeah, no hard feelings on the users who have the pages. Bluebry 02:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'll add the image JsJAd.PNG which was protected "Because I feel like it, that's why." - Qermaq - (T/C)
02:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- This redirect is protected. The reason is good, but it really should be delorted. Only 2 pages link to it, a user talk page, and the Wikitroll archive. Bluebry 02:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- This sig. Bluebry 02:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- This blank page, which exists as the old guestbooks thing in Recent Changes. So, it's now unimportant. Bluebry 02:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- This sig. Bluebry 02:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- This redirect is protected. The reason is good, but it really should be delorted. Only 2 pages link to it, a user talk page, and the Wikitroll archive. Bluebry 02:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'll add the image JsJAd.PNG which was protected "Because I feel like it, that's why." - Qermaq - (T/C)
You're right that they don't fit those guidelines, but why should they be unprotected? For instance, why would anyone besides me have a legitimate reason to edit my User page? (And I can edit it just fine, protected or not.) --Jay (Gobble) 02:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
