UDWiki:Administration/Protections/2005/December

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Protections Archive

2005 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Q3 Q4
2013 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Years 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019



Suggestions

Done. --Daranz-Talk 22:22, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Protection done, and schedule added to the scheduling request queue -- Odd Starter 04:56, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Protections served. -- Odd Starter 10:14, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Additional. Thx. --Squashua 22:24, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Protections served. This is now a scheduled protection, so there's no need to continue putting the new pages up here. -- Odd Starter talk | Mod 06:40, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Cool. Out of curiosity, when does the schedule enact? Some stuff is currently closed, but not protected. I'm not criticizing; I'd like to know if this is manual or automated. Thanks! --Squashua 21:19, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
It's not automated (although if someone can build a bot to do it, I may consider running it for that purpose. I'll get to the current ones shortly -- Odd Starter talk | Mod 08:35, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Thanks - curiosity killed. I promise to not bug you about it. :-) --Squashua 14:58, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Just a question, would it be at all posiable to have the suggestions page protected, but still have the edit tabs. It makes it difficult to move suggestions to peer accepted ect in a long document as it is hard to find the suggestion. This would be much apriciated if it's posiable - Jedaz 09:36, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Don't think so, unfortunately. That's hardcoded into the system, and us moderators don't have access to the code. -- Odd Starter talk | Mod 09:52, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Someone hasn't been sending in the protection schedules for a while for closed votes on the Previous suggestions --Scorpius 00:43, 2 Feb 2006 (GMT)
    • November 23rd 2005 - January 18th 2006

Category:Malton Confederacy

Due to defacement by User:Alexei Yaruk of the category and all listed articles based on a personal vandetta plus various other modifications carried out that were of POV nature. BrianSutherland 03:48, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)

I am going to protect it for now, until we agree on something, instead of just provoking edit wars. Please take the discussion to the discussion page for the MC page, and see the deletion requests page for deletetion requests. --Daranz-Talk 03:57, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)

I take personal ofense at the Implication that I was Vandalizeing the pages I edited. I left the content TOTALY unchanged other than removeing links tieing it back to the old Catagory listing. I did NOTHING ELSE. --Alexei Yaruk 23:45, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)

I unprotected it now. I hope we won't see another edit war on the page, as it seems The Imperium is happy enough with their own category page --Daranz-Talk 03:20, 29 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Alexei Yaruk has begun removing the categories again, even though the issue is still under discussion. Since he doesn't seem content to let this be settled through discussion and consensus, perhaps you should protect this page again. --Chester Katz 18:27, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)

I protected it again. It seems that Alexei still fails to grasp that he is not to make decisions alone here. --Daranz | Talk | 18:39, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Actually it is YOU who fail to grasp the Issue at hand. You have said yourself that your opinion carries no more weight than any other. Nether does mine. The difference between us is you have been given power while I have not. I however will ACT on what I think without cowering before empty "Public Opinion". This is the Quintessence of the Wiki system "Anyone can make Improvements, revise Errors, or generally Improve the Wiki's Quality." This is what I do, and I refuse to be Bullied into renouncing my right to do so. Alexei Yaruk 20:35, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Since so many of our methods and guidelines are based on those on Wikipedia, allow me to link you to relevant parts of its policy pages: [1] [2]. If you look at the situation, you will see that you yourself exercise more power than me. While I want to encourage a discussion leading to a conclusion that both parties can agree on, you use your power to edit pages to FORCE a solution on everyone. That certainly is not a way in which most wikis work. --Daranz | Talk | 21:21, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Err... Alexei, you do understand that part of wiki philosophy is one of democracy, right? My general advice to people is typically worded "Go ahead! Change what you like! People will tell you if what you're doing is wrong." (my emphasis). Working to change things is all well and good, but the community makes the final decision as to whether a given change is appropriate. As we keep trying to tell people, this wiki does work by majority rule. Your ability to edit every page does not give you license to make changes that the community does not want. -- Odd Starter 23:56, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Also, in light of accusations of my bias, I'd like to request that another moderator here either unprotect the page, or state that the page should remain protected temporairly. --Daranz | Talk | 21:44, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)

I am going to leave it protected for 3 days, after which we'll revisit this issue. -- Odd Starter 00:29, 5 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Since it was supposed to be unprotected 5 days ago, I'm opening the page up again. --LibrarianBrent 05:12, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)

UNATCO

It seems that changing NPOV to POV is popular nowadays! The UNATCO page keeps getting changed from "This is a PKer group who have a Deus Ex gimmick, blah blah blah" to "We are killing terrorists and DARIS sucks!!" It'd be great if you could just lock it for maybe a few hours so that people wouldn't stop replacing the NPOV sections, so that people could read the page and actually gain some useful information instead of useless, heavily-biased POV crap which isn't even true anyway. --Katthew 04:01, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)

I'll keep a close eye on it for the next couple of hours. If it doesn't settle down, I'll place a lock on it. I'd much prefer, however, that the parties involved reach some sort of agreement, rather than having to lock it down. -- Odd Starter 05:45, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Considering the choices seem to be between "NPOV" and "biased, circlejerking bullshit" I'd rather agree to have the former rather than the latter. I think Matthew-Stewart and Shadowlord have to understand that whilst group pages are about groups, they are not owned wholesale by said groups and to be used entirely for their benefit. --Katthew 07:10, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Then, perhaps, you should work on a compromise between NPOV and "biased, circlejerking bullshit", if the two possibilities are not acceptable to both parties. -- Odd Starter 10:11, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Humorous_Suggestions & Suggestions/8th-Dec-2005

The author of the Not Have Zombies suggestion keeps reverting the movement of his suggestion from the Humorous_Suggestions page, despite it being inherently ludicrous and an obvious piece of satire along the same lines as "A Modest Proposal." Request lock and moderation-review as to its suitability to actually continue in voting along with serious suggestions. --Drakkenmaw 21:00, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)

  • I may not participate often in the wiki, but I thought it was funny. Plus, [[3]] gets to stay... and its also stupid... *shrugs* edit: I'm an idiot and don't know how to use the format system. But blargh.--Gorthaur 07:57, 24 April 2006 (BST)

Unofficial_UD_Forums

Slicer has unilaterally-rewritten the Forum page, and is refusing calls by Axe-man to allow discussion by other interested parties regarding the changes to be made. This is an obvious case for a lock, to allow discussion to take place prior to any such changes being made - since Slicer is apparently not allowing dissenting opinions to be heard. --Drakkenmaw 23:58, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)

None of the information was lost, each group which was previously advertizing their forum or mud slinging the other forum were given their own page. It was a wonderful comprimise that cleaned up the format and made the page more concise. No content was lost, it was simply moved. This in no way precludes the finishing of the discussion about the content of each group's different page. I agree that perhaps it should be locked, but not to the cluttered POV version. --Matthew-Stewart 00:05, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)

I don't honestly care which way it is locked to - I just want it locked, so the recent changes will stop being flooded with a juvenile edit-war. I'm not a member of any of those forums, I don't care which way "wins," but unilateral action like this is contrary to the central point of having a public wiki format. And it's bloody annoying. --Drakkenmaw 00:09, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)
If nothing else, locking this thing would stop it from flooding the Recent Changes page, which it is at the moment. -- James Holloway 00:17, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)

There should be discussion of an issue instead of mass reverts. None of you are discussing anything.--Axe-man 00:07, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Fazed

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Fazed Fazed keeps getting vandalism on it and we have reverted about 10 times in the past few days. --Fazed18:34, 28, DEC. 2005

Personal tools
advertisements