User talk:DeirdreAnne/Archives/2009/12
 | This page is a chronological archive of past discussions from the current talk page for the period Please specify dates with: {{Chronological talk archive|dates}}.
In order to preserve the record of past discussions, the contents of this page should be preserved in their current form. Please do NOT make new edits to this page. If you wish to make new comments or re-open an old discussion thread, please do so on the current talk page. If necessary, copy the relevant discussion thread to the current talk page page and then add your comments there. |
Wikipedia:Protection policy - Retired users
Hi Doug, re this edit - I realise that this is the text shown at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy#Retired users, but it doesn't seem to read correctly - what exactly is meant by "should not be protected absent substantial current vandalism"? --Redrose64 (talk) 23:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- It means we don't automatically (nor on request) protect the pages of "retired users", there has to be some independent reason that would implicate protection. There has been a tendency by some admins in the past to protect pages with the reason user has retired or user is gone no need for anyone to edit this. These are not and never have been supported by the protection policy and actually contradict what we've said expressly for a long time about deceased users. I want it to be clear so please let me know what about it you weren't sure about. Was it written in a convoluted way?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 08:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- It's the words "protected", "absent", "substantial" and "current" occuring together. The only way I can make any sense is if we replace "absent" with "against", and strike either of the next two, thus: "protected against current vandalism" or "protected against substantial vandalism". --Redrose64 (talk) 12:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- aaah, I see. Neither of those meanings is intended. I think we need a comma after "protected" change "current" to "ongoing" maybe and maybe even "absent" to "unless there is"; thus "should not be protected, unless there is substantial ongoing vandalism". What do you think of that?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 13:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Reads much better. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- aaah, I see. Neither of those meanings is intended. I think we need a comma after "protected" change "current" to "ongoing" maybe and maybe even "absent" to "unless there is"; thus "should not be protected, unless there is substantial ongoing vandalism". What do you think of that?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 13:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- It's the words "protected", "absent", "substantial" and "current" occuring together. The only way I can make any sense is if we replace "absent" with "against", and strike either of the next two, thus: "protected against current vandalism" or "protected against substantial vandalism". --Redrose64 (talk) 12:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)
The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 08:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)