Talk:Halloween/Archive 8

message: I've made two requests for semi-protection that have been largely unheeded. Meanwhile, there have been dozens of reverts to the Halloween page today due to vandalism. Shocking, I know, for vandals to attack a WP page about a holiday often loudly celebrated by...wait for it...vandals. Can anyone get an admin to listen to the semi-protect request? Thanks. -- Weirdoactor 21:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current policy is not to protect or semi-protect articles that are linked to from the main page. See Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoon controversy for a similar case. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 21:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're incorrect; the policy is not to protect or semi-protect the Featured Article. Semi-protection of articles linked from the main page is allowed; especially if the article is under attack. - Weirdoactor 22:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Wikipedia:Protection policy: "Important Note: When a page is particularly high profile, either because it is linked off the main page, or because it has recently received a prominent link from offsite, it will often become a target for vandalism. It is not appropriate to protect pages in this case. Instead, consider adding them to your watchlist, and reverting vandalism yourself." (Italics added for emphasis) Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 23:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That refers to full protection only. The semi-protection policy page (and common sense) says that it's okay to semi-protect a page if vandalism is truly out of hand. 15 vandalisms an hour isn't out of hand though, considering the number of admins watching this page. --W.marsh 23:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying this to quibble with you, but where does it refer "to full protection only"? It simply refers to protecting a page, without distinguishing between full-protection and semi-protection. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 23:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see "common sense" wasn't enough and we'll need a direct quotation from almighty policy... "pages linked from the Main Page may be protected if under attack" from Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy. --W.marsh 23:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Aecis: please see "When not to use semi-protection" on this page - Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy; particularly the phrase Other pages linked from the Main Page may be protected if under attack (Italics added for emphasis). Perhaps you don't consider the page to be under attack. Perhaps you think reverting dozens of vandal edits on an article about Halloween, ON Halloween is par for the course. I understand the concept of not preemptively protecting an article; but this would obviously be a good case FOR semi-protection, to prevent what Jimbo Wales refers to as "drive-by nonsense" (i.e.; "oh, d00d, it's HALLOWEEEN, let's go FUX0r with Wikipedia"). - Weirdoactor 23:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand corrected on the policy. I'm not sure if semi-protecting the article is such a good idea though. Most of the edits are simply childish pranks, not vandalism. They are now on one page, which makes it easy to track and revert. If we semi-protect this article, I fear that they will spread out to articles linked to from this article, making the reverting of those edits more difficult and complicated. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 23:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  One could argue that ALL vandalism is defined as "childish pranks". And why have any protection policy at all, if it can be argued that the vandals will migrate? It's sort of an "why put out the fire in the kitchen, because it might start back up in the living room" argument. Whatever. I'm done begging for protection and reverting “childish pranks”. It's Sisyphusian on a day like this, especially when admins show a complete lack of faith in enacting said policy when it’s shown to be necessary.  -- Weirdoactor 00:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  I concur with Aecis. Semi-protection/protection on a high profile article is just a last resort... the last time I did it was well, a few days ago to 2006 World Series, but we were talking 2+ vandals a minute, right after the last game ended. Halloween's almost over and the bots are getting much of the vandalism anyway. --W.marsh 00:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Check out 19:06 - 19:07; seven vandals hit in a one minute period. But there's no problem. Don't worry! Everything's fine. -- Weirdoactor 00:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: For admins watching this page, I'd also note that the Halloween traditions page is getting its share of vandalism today, too.  --Kathryn NicDhàna 23:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I have restored the Ireland section. — Walloon 04:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article page needs to be semi-protected for the day of Halloween 

message: I compressed the Religious Controversies section, but I think it is still too long.  Perhaps those who contributed to that section could make a different page, specifically about Evangelical and Fundamentalist views.  Or something.  Some of the sources cited were nothing short of propaganda and hate speech.  One article cited and quoted at length,  about the Eric Pryor case, was particularly shameful.  I covered that case as a journalist - the guy was a hoax.  He was an unstable, poverty-stricken drug addict, paid off by televangelist Larry Lea, first to pretend that he was a "leader" in the Neopagan community, then to make evil-fu death threats towards Lea, then to dramatically "convert" and become a televangelist.  Lea later went down to his own scandals, but that stunt was one of the things that destroyed his credibility and led to his demise.  While I think it is relevant to mention that there is a certain degree of religious hysteria in some quarters when it comes to Halloween, I am truly dismayed at the amount of POV and outright propaganda that I found there.  --Kathryn NicDhàna 06:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extreme Religious Viewpoints 

message: In the begininning of the article it's said that halloween originates as All-Hallows-Even. It's probably a spelling mistake, but it could be misleading if you don't realize it's actually "All-Hallows-Eve" — Henry Corvel 20:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was always told it was "All Hallows Even": the even is where "e'en" comes from in the correct spelling "Hallowe'en. --Alex (Talk) 02:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I put that in, and no, it is not an error. That spelling is taken directly from the Oxford English Dictionary, and I've had to change it back from many others who think that it is an error. The words eve and even are both shortened forms of evening, with even being the older abbreviation. After all, where do you think the letter "n" comes from at the end of the word Halloween?  — Walloon 02:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Error 

message: --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 05:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: <S>I would request waiting till sometime tomorrow.</S>(see below -kpn)  When it was unprotected late last night, vandalism took place all night, resulting in a great deal of work for us today. <S> More of the US editors will be able to keep an eye on the article if it waits till tomorrow (or longer, depending).  If protection is lifted, I suggest at least partial protection for now.</S> (see below -kpn)  --Kathryn NicDhàna 05:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd like to keep it on full protection until my RfC and my incident report (re: Caloon2000's revert/edit war, and his/her POV edits and unreliable citation links) have been acted on. Semi-protection would not prevent Caloon2000 from going on another POV editing tear. -- Weirdoactor 05:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, that said, I agree the article should remain on full protection until the incident reports (those listed above, plus mine for Caloon's violation of WP:3RR) are all dealt with.  I do not want to lose another day to doing this all over again. --Kathryn NicDhàna 05:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Halloween has passed, request unprotection?