Forum:Proposal: Protect All Featured Articles Forever

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Proposal: Protect All Featured Articles Forever

Note: This topic has been unedited for 5209 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Is anyone else sick of n00bs coming along and adding unfunny shit to your otherwise well-written featured work? Can we please just protect all featured articles so that next time I disappear for 6 months I don't come back to find that some cunt has pissed all over my best works? -- folksy Ape (hurt) (Riot Porn) 17:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

No. -OptyC Sucks! CUN17:36, 15 Jul

no u --Sir Sunbeam no u F@H KUN 17:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Just protect them from new users and IPs? Simples, no? -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Yeah. Do we do that already? -- folksy Ape (hurt) (Riot Porn) 18:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't protect mine. It's worth my while giving them a quick check now and again and removing any rubbish just so I can keep some of the funny stuff that's been added to them. Rabbi Techno kvetch Contribs FOXES 18:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

At the very least, can I get mine protected from newfags? -- folksy Ape (hurt) (Riot Porn) 18:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

/insert expected speech about the whole this is a wiki and free for all and you can revert crap changes. ~ 18:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

in the words of one of our great writers, "nah. iz wiki." skullthumper, i think. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 18:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

NEWFAGS CAN'T TRIFORCE. Sorry, I had to make the reference. Anyway, I agree with Gerry.--Bad Shroom 19:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Can't we just make a special exception for me? -- folksy Ape (hurt) (Riot Porn) 19:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Why are you so special, exactly? If we made an exception for YOU, all the newfags (who can't triforce) would cry about how THEY want in.--Bad Shroom 19:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Um, who the fuck are you? -- folksy Ape (hurt) (Riot Porn) 19:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of semi-protecting them against new accounts and IPs. It was extremely irritating to me that I had to keep logging in every ten minutes earlier this week to revert vandalism to The fact that you don't want a poodle. Thankfully, Socky and Orian also had it watchlisted and were attentive. pillow talk 19:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I remember. I love that article, its shortness and humor inspired me to make Let me just say one thing... Semi-protection forever!--Bad Shroom 19:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I Agree With Ape

Apparently, because we're a website that uses wiki formatting, pointless unfunny bullshit contributions are just as encouraged as quality, well-thought-out contributions, and anyone who suggests differently is The Devil. I however, strongly disagree with this position, as I'm sure most of you are aware. If we can't just straight-up ban unregistered users altogether, I don't see why we can't protect featured articles. To use what I've come to refer to as "the Wikipedia Precedent" (Wikipedia allows anonymous contributions, so we should, too!), we should protect our featured content, because Wikipedia does the same thing. So. There. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 19:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia did temporary semi-protection for a few days which expires when the article is no longer on the main page. Just like we do? MrN 19:39, Jul 15

Who said anything about "wikipedia allows annoymous contributions so we should too" exactly? We said, "it's a free for all wiki, get over it". Same with the featured content. They are protected for the feature period and if specific articles get vandalized a lot, feel free to ask an admin to protect it - but protect everything because it was featured? I'm against it. Some content added to featured articles can enrich them. I can say from my own experience that I keep some (even though not all) changes to my featured articles. So again - you can revert whatever content that doesn't appeal to you or ask for help if it's a constantly vandalized article. But other than that? I don't think it's necessary. ~ 19:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that a featured article can be improved. I think a FA constitutes a finished work of art and that any changes to it by anyone constitute vandalism. Just like if they were to, say, add extra scenes to Life Of Brian, or something. -- folksy Ape (hurt) (Riot Porn) 20:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Mordillo. For one, protecting an article prevents "maintenance" edits (catting, sectional templating, formatting, et cetera). Also, many of the featured articles can use improvement. --Mn-z 05:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, you have a couple of days off ill, you wander back, see what you miss... FWIW, there have been edits to several of my features, by IPs, since they were featured, that I consider an improvement. There has also been some vandalism - so? I have a rollback button. If you're that protective of your "best" work, don't put it on a website that "anyone can edit, or, to put it another way: "if you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here" - as it says below every single edit you make, every time you click the "save page" button. Finally: harrumph. --UU - natter 08:27, Jul 16

I see your illness only improved your thought process! Swine flu anyone? ~ 08:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has different goals, and therefore different ways of doing things. We're trying to make art, which doesn't lend itself well to collaboration, or repeated editing. -- folksy Ape (hurt) (Riot Porn) 19:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

This all seems so familiar

Isn't this just a variation on the "Don't Let IPs Edit Here" argument? Oh wait, it is. No. The featured article is the most visible article and features are already protected while they're featured. Nothing else is needed. You don't want your feechur changed? Watchlist it. -OptyC Sucks! CUN19:36, 15 Jul

Seconded. Transformers rule. ~ 19:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

How about, let this be a lesson to you to not bugger off for 6 months at a time. Bad things will happen, people will consider you to be dead. And then, when you return.... who knows! Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 19:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Since we can and are free to revert edits made by IPs, and sometimes they do surprise us positively by editing articles with slight improvements, there isn't a reason to ban them from editing, unless they of course earn a round of banhammer-whack-a-vandal anyways. As long as it's protected while it's featured, that should suffice for now. -- DameViktoria - (Contribs) - (Talk) - (Block log) 20:01, 15 Jul

I should be free to fuck off for 6 months while I'm really busy drinking without coming back to find someone has fucked up my best work. -- folksy Ape (hurt) (Riot Porn) 20:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

But we miss you when you leave! Drink with us, not against us. Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 20:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I suprisingly agree

When I was just a wee IP, I made The Fork and Spoon War, which bluntly, sucks. When I became a user, I actually STARTED reading the guides. So, I agree with banning IP edits.--Bad Shroom 19:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

We're not starting that discussion again. ~ 19:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. Why are there no Jewish transformers? -OptyC Sucks! CUN19:53, 15 Jul

I think we should start that discussion again! DRAMA (WORSHIP ME OR FEAR MY WRATH) 19:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't think robots are that religiously active, what with some despising humans and all. Plus, the transformers weren't even made on Earth as according to a YouTube video.--Bad Shroom 19:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

They could convert. Or maybe there's a robot to Jew adapter they could plug in. -OptyC Sucks! CUN19:58, 15 Jul

Religous machine plugins would have to be copyrighted, and to copyright or mess with any reilgion is like having sex with a diseased African. And optimous Prime would probably think of converting as bad faith, that bastard.--Bad Shroom 20:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I prefer plugging my Gentile Adapter into Jewesses. pillow talk 20:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Cool. How much does one of those set you back? -OptyC Sucks! CUN20:07, 15 Jul

Well, I'm Christian, so I'm not getting into this. What happened to the Featured Article discussion?--Bad Shroom 20:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It's over. -OptyC Sucks! CUN20:11, 15 Jul

HowTo:Keep a village dump forum on topic. That link should help you figure that one out Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 20:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

(Protection log); 20:12 . . MrN9000 (Talk | contribs | block) protected "Forum:Proposal: Protect All Featured Articles Forever" [edit=sysop] (indefinite) 
[move=sysop] (indefinite) (Sysop protected. This page is now perfect. No need to change it....

Back on topic

So, how about we discuss my proposal, which is not the same as banning IP edits, at all. -- folksy Ape (hurt) (Riot Porn) 20:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Finally, it's unprotected. Anyway, I highly agree with you, we should semi-protect featured pages.--Bad Shroom 20:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

So, I almost got banned just now. Can someone please revive this topic and talk?--Bad Shroom 20:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Back on topic you say? Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 20:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

UH OH: THIS FORUM'S BEEN HIJACKED! I don't know what the hell you people were talking about before, but you sure aren't talking about that now. You're probably discussing penises or something. The forums are so god damned stupid.

Well, the way I see it, articles, whether featured or not, don't belong to the author. Once they're submitted to a wiki they become property of everybody and everybody can edit any article as they see fit. If you really don't want anonymous people editing "your" article, then you shouldn't put it on a wiki. Featured articles, being as I said the most visible articles, are most likely the biggest draw for new members so protecting them serves the same purpose in my mind as banning IPs. In the end though, as somebody far smarter than I am once said, "the people who could do this don't want to" so this is really a moot point anyway. -OptyC Sucks! CUN21:01, 15 Jul

Hmph. Well, when both points are made, there's really no answer. However, we should just semi-protect them. Wikipedia states that it is not supposed to be followed as a role-model, but just to be read to gain knowledge. Uncyclopedia does follow some rules of Wiki, but can be twisted on command.IPs are mindless idiots and need to become users to be funny. --Bad Shroom 21:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

No, they belong to the community. And as a community, we should recognise that a FA represents (usually) a highly polished and self-contained piece of art, and that any edit that changes it represents vandalism. -- folksy Ape (hurt) (Riot Porn) 21:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Our "community" also includes IPs whether you like it or not. And LOL @ the idea that FA's can't ever be improved by IPs. -OptyC Sucks! CUN21:23, 15 Jul

You may have a point. FAs have that sarcastic, perfect, and smartass humor that's loved by everyone. Maybe we should just semi-protect at first, then fully protect it, just to see how people react. And thank GOD this topic didn't go to penis humor.--Bad Shroom 21:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying FA's can't be improved by anyone. -- folksy Ape (hurt) (Riot Porn) 21:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

And that's less laughable how exactly? -OptyC Sucks! CUN21:35, 15 Jul

I could be wrong, but I don't think I've ever finished an article before it was featured. I almost always find something to add or fix afterward, either the day after it's on the main page or in a week, or looking at it a year later. Forget random IPs and new users, I will probably need to change things. Granted, I'm an admin and can edit them regardless of protection, but I think my point stands. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 21:45, Jul 15

Ok, original author aside, I don't think its possible for someone else to improve it. -- folksy Ape (hurt) (Riot Porn) 21:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Nah, I've seen people who aren't the author fix up a page post-featuring. Look at Zork Implementor L linkifying this page the day after it got featured, or all these additions people have made to Volcano since it got featured. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 00:00, Jul 16

We should semi-protect my penis

After all, we wouldn't want any IPs hurting themselves. -OptyC Sucks! CUN21:24, 15 Jul

They could poke their eyes out with that thing! Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 21:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, your penis is sharp and point--HEY GET BACK ON TOPIC BITCHES!IPs suck and shouldn't be allowed to breathe on articles.--Bad Shroom 21:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

(Protection log); 20:12 . . MrN9000 (Talk | contribs | block) protected "Optimuschris' Penis" [edit=sysop] (indefinite) 
[move=sysop] (indefinite) (Sysop protected. This page is now fully erect. No need to falate further.

Bad Shroom, that is your belief. Most of the people around here would disagree with you. You can read this and this. It was discussed. It was shot down because most people think I.P.s should have the same rights to edit as the rest of us. End of story. It's not changing. Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 21:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh. sorry. But can we just decide if we want FAs protected or semi-p'd?--Bad Shroom 21:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd forgotten all about that asshat Clemens. And Christ Bad Shroom, get it through your skull. The answer is no. -OptyC Sucks! CUN22:02, 15 Jul

Fine, I'll stop. But can we just end this topic with a showtune?--Bad Shroom 22:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I am the very model of a modern yadayadayada. -OptyC Sucks! CUN22:08, 15 Jul

So, that ended. What now? Close the topic?--Bad Shroom 22:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Not quite yet.

*ahem*

What ever happened to predictibility?

The milkman, the paperboy, evening TV.

Everywhere you look , everywhere you go (there's a heart).

There's a heart

A hand to hold onto.

Everywhere you look , everywhere you go.

There's a face

Of somebody who needs you.

Everywhere you look,

When you're lost out there and you're all alone,

A light is waiting to carry you home,

Everywhere you look.

Everywhere you look.

Okay, end topic. -OptyC Sucks! CUN22:18, 15 Jul

Really? I haven't even tried to lead this topic off-topic yet! Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 22:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Fuck

Right, so I didn't mean to start this whole thing again. Just forget I said anything. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 23:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Wait, what?

I just got here, and saw Mr. Apedude's suggestion, and then it spiraled off into... I don't know what. So, um... I agreee with Apey's idea, and, I'm not sure what to say about the rest of the confusing stuff. Don Puttano cHeDDs 01:04,16July,2009

It's all relative to the article. Some featured articles get vandalized a lot, others get mostly ignored after a while on the front page. A semi-protection for articles might limit vandalism, but I've actually had some great contributions to some of my featured pages from IPs which generally makes me think that this is a bad idea requiring a lot of fucking work. I remember requesting my Adolf Hitler article to be protected using the protection request page when the IP crap became too much, and now the discussion page is where IPs and users give ideas. This doesn't work for every article and I wouldn't recommend we protect or semi-protected all featured articles. I think if a user wants one of their great works to be protected or semi-protected due to vandalism (and not edits you disagree with, which can be remedied by simply getting off your lazy ass and changing them -- trust me, the IPs and new users rarely come back to make sure their edits are still there), then they ought to do the right thing and use the protection request or consult an admin on the IRC or in their talk page. Just because you wrote the article and it became featured doesn't mean it's your work. Everyone is allowed to edit regardless of how awesome your article is. There is nothing that gives the original author dominant consensus over IPs or other users. This is a wiki. You know, those sites where anyone can edit? Yeah. There's no need to incite martial law on featured pages. See Uncyclopedia:Consensus for moar. We are bringing democracy to humor. Viva la Uncyclopedia! --EMC ^[TALK] 17:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

An opinion from a user who barely even edits anymore

I think this is a bad idea. Almost all of my features have slowly had spelling and grammar mistakes fixed by IPs and other users. Most of them have had small improvements made as well. Plus, semi-protecting featured articles adds a bunch of unnecessary work to the admins' load that they really don't need to have. I don't much of a benefit to it. - UnIdiot | | Talk | Contribs - 13:39, Jul 23

So the most important thing is, why don't you edit anymore?! ~ 20:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Or, why in the hell isn't Led forcing you to somehow? Where are those trained lizards of his? Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 20:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

led is in Orlando enjoying universal sudios right now. The only way I can edit is from the lobby of my hotel, using my iPod and their wifi. Also, going to see reel big fish later! - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 22:31, Jul 23

Reel Big Fish: Their music is almost as bad as the pun... -- folksy Ape (hurt) (Riot Porn) 22:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been too lazy to edit. I'm thinking about making a return though.... - UnIdiot | | Talk | Contribs - 00:40, Jul 24

Do it! -- folksy Ape (hurt) (Riot Porn) 00:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been preparing my appeal. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 01:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

... Does that mean you took a shower? -OptyC Sucks! CUN21:41, 24 Jul

Yes, but I've mostly been practicing my innocent face. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 22:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

And that's more attractive than your mad face? -OptyC Sucks! CUN22:34, 24 Jul

Modus has a sexy mad face. Just sayin' -- folksy Ape (hurt) (Riot Porn) 22:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)