Wikipedia talk:Protection policy/Archive 6

message: When a page becomes locked, it means the content no longer is amended. Rememeber the theory behind how a wiki works? It starts with a low level of reliability which, in theory, is continually improved and amended by the edits of a multitude of users. When you lock a page, you take the page from being a wiki page, to being an ordinary internet content page -- but one generated originally by unknown persons of unsubstantiated quality .. ie "a bunch of morons", ie the page is no longer deemed of any reliable quality since "it was generated by random morons, and I can't fix it any more."
Because these pages are therefore quantifiably lower in quality (see above argument) they should have an obvious warning which spells out this inadequacy, not simply a quiet little lock symbol in the corner. Naiive users of the wikipedia need to have things spelt out for them, and this is currently the most important of those things (apart from "anyone can edit" which you still don't spell out well enough for a naiive user to understand. Aren't you lucky you have newspapers to do that for you, are you going to wait until the newspapers have to explain what the problem is with wikipedia locking pages too or are you going to do something? Thanks you in advance for your understanding in this matter, amen.) -- Planetfck (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The small lock was decided upon because it's less intrusive to viewing the page. We will continue to use protection to fight vandalism. We like to keep a lot of the bureaucratic stuff behind the scenes and just let readers read. Usually they end up somewhere (like here for example) to complain about facts or something when the page is protected too. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 01:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Intrusiveness to the reading experience would seem to be the point of the protection banner, as Planetfck was pointing out; much as all readers can (usually) participate in the creation of Wikipedia, all readers should as readily as possible be able to play a part in the consumption of its information without anyone keeping 'bureaucratic stuff' hidden away. The large protection banner is an important signifier of a page's current state of trustworthiness, and anything that causes that signifier to be lost (as it currently is on the waterboarding page next to the fundraising banner) should be of concern. Inkslinger (talk) 09:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no rule or policy that mandates either be put on a protected page (it does say I think, but it's really not "mandatory", it's common though). It is the decision of the protecting admin to choose which to put up as noted by Until(1 == 2) below. Most complaints have actually been that the banner is too intrusive, and in many cases an editor will replace the banner with the lock in the corner, which they are allowed to do. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 02:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The small lock is optional, the admin adding it usually decides if it is a banner or a lock. 1 != 2 21:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please make a banner instead of a tiny lock in the corner, as locking a page has a significant effect on the accuracy of content 

message: Look, really, this locking business has to go. It's not what a wiki is or does.
Can't you instead of having admins make a whole page immutable, have an immutable banner that the admin can place at the top of the page, saying 'well this page gets a lot of spam/vandalism/whathaveyou (tick the box) and so you should look in the page history if the page content looks awry' or something like that? You could perhaps take note of the last time the page looked 'ok' to the admin, and mention that edit point (with a link).
Or better, have more obvious info on how/what a wiki is, and how to use the history feature, perhaps have the default appearance of the page include large clear info like that, and a 'reduce this info stuff' link for the users who already know it, so that they get more screen realestate for content.
I think the argument that 'the content is more important than the usage info without the content most people wouldn't be there' argument is disingenuous and harmful. Any "content" on the site that is not clearly understood as "wikicontent" open to dispute, under development, and most importantly of all, inviting YOUR edits, is content that I want to throw away, right now, forever, gone, no more, adios, and goodbye.
If you continue to insist of pretending that this is not a wiki, and that the content which after all, you have not even written yourself, is of the highest quality irredeemable stand-up-in-court-and-say-so your honour, with never-a-by-your-leave oh yessir me hearty jim lad oh yes it does sir, well, I call you madmen.
This is a wiki. EVERY SINGLE READER must be taught what a wiki is before they can use the content. IF YOU DO NOT DO THIS PRO-ACTIVELY THEN SURELY THE ENTIRE WIKI IS WORSE THAN USELESS AND IN FACT HARMFUL. Once you do actually do this, then the locking mechanism will be understood by all users to be a cancer. And of course, perhaps this is what you like about it -- but if it is, it is you who is deranged, and we will leave you to your derangement al fresco non-comprende, oh yes, you win sir, and we will never be able to build another, oh no we won;t there shall be no more wikis, honest... -- Planetfck (talk) 16:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We would like users to understand how to use a wiki before they use it, but it is not mandatory. It would be impossible to mandate that every new user goes through 100+ guidelines/policies/essays/boards before they are allowed to edit. As I said above, we will continue to use protections as a way to fight vandalism, that's not going to change. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 01:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The most important thing of a wiki is not the history that can be checked, but the fact that it is something that anyone can edit. We should try to keep things as accessable as possible. At any rate, vandalism seems only a minor problem in Wikipedia compared to POV pushing and dispute resolution. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest alternative way of dealing with problem pages 

message: Can only admins do the protection? Dreamy \*/!$! 22:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Richard001 00:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I noticed some text looking like this in the source code of the Wikipedia:Protection policy article:    I don't have much experience with HTML, but I'm assuming that this message tells the server that the article is semi-protected, and therefore prevents users who are not logged in from editing the text of the article.  While I understand why only admins are allowed to protect articles (so that random noobs can't lock a page into a vandalized state, for instance,) I think I may have found a loophole; is it possible for anybody, even a non-admin or non-user, to semi-protect a page by simply adding  to the top of the article?  Conversely, is it possible to remove semi-protection from a page by removing this text?  I just felt like I had to say this, in order to plug up a potential security hole.  --Luigifan 19:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. That's not what protects the page. That just displays a notice that the page is protected. The protection tab is at the top, next to history, but only admins can see it, and even if you could see it, were you to click it it wouldn't work:  --Deskana (talky) 19:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Phew!  For a moment, I thought I might have uncovered a hole for noobs to exploit!  Thanks for avelliating my concerns.  (Wait, is that a real word?)  Ah, I'll just thank you for putting me at ease and leave it at that.  :p  --Luigifan 12:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: *You mean "alleviate" :) >Radiant< 13:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admins 

message: Hello! Straight into the subject. :) I have a question, possibly for the developers: could the textarea with contents of a protected page not be read only? The software currently denies users anything that simply resembles editing. Of course, this accords with the general attitude of protection. However, I often select text strafing with arrow keys and function keys, and this feature makes it impossible. Also, say one wants to modify and copy some markup found on a protected page. He cannot do it inside the source textarea, but he has to copy it and edit manually somewhere else.
Making the textarea editable would not harm the project, since there would still be no submit button, and server-side system would catch an unauthorized edit attempt nonetheless. Please consider it. Thanks! 83.31.240.223 14:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Read only textarea 

message: they are dogs  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.234.247 (talk) 22:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  cavilair k.c spanial 

message: Is this available on the latest version of Wikimedia software or is this exclusive only to WM wikis?  VoL†ro/\/Force 00:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be available on the newest versions (I believe MW 1.10 was where it came in). Anything after r19103 should have it (which is listed under Special:Version). It looks like the newest stable version is 1.11, and that should have it. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 18:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cascading Protection 

message: Am I allowed to remove vandalism warnings, copyright image notices, etc, from my user talk page? 
User:Yamakiri user has threatened to permanently protect my user talk page so that i cant edit it myself. Can i remove copyright image notices at least? i hope you see this soon and you could message me to help me out. thx Modelun88 00:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Getting of tired of going behind him... Anyways, he's removed block notices, and I'm not an admin so I just requested that his page be protected and that he get a block.  P.S. he's copied and pasted this on quite a few pages now.Yamakiri 00:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've went behind him so many times!  I'm sure if he's allowed, well now to prove it he's posted this so many times it's disruptive --Yamakiri 00:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: There are currently 1600 indefinitely semi-protected articles in the main namespace alone. Is this right? 200.85.224.36 16:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where are you getting the figure from exactly? -Royalguard11(T·R!) 20:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In pseudocode:   | grep -vc expires = 1608. The reality seems to be detached from this policy. 200.85.224.36 21:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because they don't have an expiry set doesn't mean they won't (manually). On the other hand, (other admins:read this) we should be using expiry dates whenever possible. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 22:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe one indicator of de facto indefinite semi/protection could be to identify those articles currently without expiration dates that have remained in a semi/protected status more often than they are unprotected over a defined period, say, the last six months. --HailFire 09:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indefinite semi-protection 

message: I've brought this up before, but I'd like to throw a new idea out there. How about we get rid of full protection and replace it with a stricter version of semi-protection, where the editor needs to have been around a while and know what they're doing. This would be something similar to the 'trusted editor' or 'reviewer' status suggested at WP:FLAGGED. We could then also consider lightening the requirements of editing a semi-protected page. Maybe a day? There are quite a few protected pages now (see above) and four days is a while to have to wait to edit them. I feel that if there was some lighter version of full protection we could use that when needed if the one day criteria was too little a vandal sieve. We could always keep full protection I guess, though there would surely be very few situations where it would be needed. Richard001 09:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Levels of protection

message: look at the former members and you will find this is wrong if you read how they came together davis is apparently still in the baqnd when he left 
daniel≈  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.201.239.243 (talk) 19:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the paramore page 

message: Browsing wikipedia i fell up on an article titled "Republic of Macedonia" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Macedonia). As you know, this country for the moment is recognised by E.U, U.N. and all other international organisations under the name F.Y.R.O.M. . My question is simple: Why does wikipedia recognise this country under the name Republic of Macedonia?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clandestino (talk • contribs) 23:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My question is what does this have to do with protection policy? Please ask somewhere relevant, like the page's talk page, or at worst a policy page more closely connected like WP:NAME. Richard001 06:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: If you do want an explanation, then it's because the principle rule in naming articles is "use common name", which happens to be Republic of Macedonia in this case. The naming dispute is covered in Macedonia naming dispute. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 23:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  F.Y.R.O.M.  

message: In "Guitar Hero III", one song is missing from the list.
It's "Don't Hold Back" by The Sleeping.
If you look at wikipedia's "The Sleeping" page, they confirmed that their song would be in the game. I point this out because the myspace bulletin they posted said their song would be in it, but i couldn't possibly link you to it, seeing as it disappeared.
Can some Admin change this? thank-you!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Circaocean (talk • contribs) 01:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the nth time, this isn't the place for these requests. If you'd like someone to add something, make a request on the talk page and someone will do it for you. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 18:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GUITAR HERO 3 

message: idk about using this to help reasearch it can be changed what is said  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.77.208 (talk) 00:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may find some information about this at Wikipedia:General disclaimer. -- lucasbfr talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 12:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliabiliy of Wiki-world 

message: if you could add this under beliefs----the patriarchal beliefs the puritans held in the community made puritans lifestyles very strict and difficult because the church would give horrid punishment no matter what the wrong doing was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew1234567 (talk • contribs) 
:Feel free to add the text you want in the talk page of the article, and add  to get an admin to add it if the article is fully protected. If it is just semiprotected, wait a few days until you are able to edit it. -- ReyBrujo 01:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Is it possible to include the peak charting positions of other countries that are not included on the list, for example, Australia and New Zealand. It's currently protected but these are the peak positions for each song in New Zealand:
#3 - What you waiting for?
#3 - Rich Girl
#3 - Hollaback Girl
#9 - Cool
#17 - Luxurious
#1 - Wind it up
#1 - Sweet Escape
#5 - 4 in the morning
#36 - Now that you got it
#6 - Let me blow ya mind
#17 - Can I have it like that?
Reference: www.rianz.org.nz/chart.asp  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.121.175 (talk) 10:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even though the article is protected, the "talk page" or "discussion" is not. Please move your post there. Contact me should you need further assistance. Thank you, and have a great day. Puchiko 20:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gwen Stefani Discography 

message: Under semi-protection there is no mention as to what frequency is considered high for anon IPs vandalising pages. Some words here may be helpful. I generally semiprotect if an article (especially a large one where info can get easily lost or misappropriated) if it is copping 1 or more vandal edits a day from more than 1 IP. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the test should take into account levels of activity on each specific article and whether the unhelpful edits might be best managed through less intrusive methods. For example, articles currently listed in the Wikicharts top 1000 most viewed or the Wikirage 100 most frequently edited may attract more unhelpful edits, but because they also benefit from wider and more active participation of helpful editors they should need semi-protection only rarely. In those cases, the vandalism should be persistent, meaning at least five or more vandal edits from five different IPs within the last four hours (suggesting active, coordinated vandalism).  There should also be some evidence of unsuccessful user- and admin-level participation in trying first-resort revert, warn, then block remedies to calm the most recent outbreak. Because the distinction of what is "vandalism" and what is merely considered to be unhelpful is a judgment call, we should err on the side of remaining true to Wikipedia's hopes as "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." --HailFire 09:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: We've been through this one before (I forget which archive). The upshot of the discussion was that the policy doesn't (and shouldn't) explicitely quantify what level of vandalism is required for semi-protection because: (a) there are  admins, each with differing views (wildly differing views, in some cases) on what the threshold level of vandalism should be. Trying to quantify a level on which they'll all agree would be a near-impossible task and an create unneccesary amount of argument for what isn't a particularly pressing problem. That leads onto (b), this isn't a particularly pressing problem. Many, many pages are protected each day, yet requests that the policy be made more explicit appear once in a blue moon. This suggests to me that the whole protection process (inasmuch as there is a process) is working fine as it is. Disagreements on specific cases can be and are solved by sensibly talking to the admin in question. Let's not try to fix what isn't broken. (c) Avoid instruction creep. (d) Each page is unique, and the appropriateness of semi-protection differs depending on whether the article is new or mature, high or low profile, about a living person or not, etc (not an exhaustive list). "1 or more vandal edits a day from more than 1 IP" may be appropriate for some articles but not others. Adding in a one-size-fits-all criterion would cause more problems than it would solve and would simply not be used in practice, yet trying to address every different article type combination (i.e. the list above) would make the policy page complicated and verbose to the point where, again, people will cease to take any notice of it. (e) The policy as it is currently worded allows for flexibility and prevents wikilawyering. I would choose flexibility over rigidity any day, and discouraging wikilawyering is more important than people often realise. – Steel 14:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a pointer to one previous discussion concerning a closely related concern, semi-protection durations. --HailFire 15:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In case you missed it, there's the rough guide at the bottom of the content page where general considerations are discussed. Feel free discuss changes or add additional criteria you feel have been overlooked. Richard001 22:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the links folks - I guess my issue is when pages start to get really hefty with lots of prose and some IPs start making silly edits that get lost in the mass of prose and hard to find. I do like the freedom too and mainly posted this in case I missed some page somewhere which had specified.cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quantifying what constitutes frequent vandalism 

message: Royalguard11, RE: Semi-protection, If the three rules (“Semi-protection should not be used:”) are to apply to all spaces, not just mainspace, then how do you reconcile with the preceding points “Indefinite semi-protection may be used for:”  The long-term semi-protection of user pages and policy pages (including this one) is in contradiction with the version you have reverted to.  --SmokeyJoe 21:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are exceptions to the rules. Just those two (and even the indefinite userpage one is disputed, see talk archives). Policy pages are just an exception. They need to stay accurate because they're policy. Everything else falls under those three rules (no preemptive for any space, no general prohibiting annon editing, and the other one is common sense, as an admin you protect from everyone or you block both, you never play sides in a dispute). -Royalguard11(T·R!) 21:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bot config pages are often protected to avoid abuse too. Everything has exceptions. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 21:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The indefinite use of semi-protection outside mainspace

message: Not sure if this is allowed, but here's what I was thinking: My sandbox is of more use to me as a sort of 'scratchpad' area, so I'm thinking I'd like to be able to protect it so I can leave stuff there that's for my reference/WIP. Is this allowed? Or am I missing the point? Thanks, either way.    ¥    Jacky Tar  21:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought, this question might better be asked over at the Village Pump. Will post it there as well. Thank you.    ¥    Jacky Tar  21:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection of user sandboxes

message: Ok, I cannot edit semi-protected articles, how may I? Rick-LevittContribs 14:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your account is not four days old yet. You will be able to edit semi-protected articles in about 30 hours. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh ok thank you zzuuzz. Rick-LevittContribs 17:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trouble 

message: Could you please ad hu:iPhone . Thanks  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.229.53.93 (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Next time you can just put  on the talk page with your request, and someone will come around and do it too. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 16:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language 

message: At half time South Africa have 9 points and England have 3 points.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.136.38 (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007 Rugby World Cup Final Score. 

message: My User page has been semi-protected (as I requested).
When I try to edit the page, it says:
If you have a user account, sign in first. If you do not yet have an account, you may create one; after a while, you will be able to edit semi-protected pages.
I only have this account for a day, so when will I be able to edit it? Muenda 15:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Found it in the article... didn't read it well enough. Muenda 15:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question 

message: Can I get my user page, semi-protected? Tigersfan1992 22:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been done. In future, requests are made at WP:RFPP. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: User Page Vandalized

message: can you guys stop people from editing the ESPN.com's Fanboard page, people keep being vandals.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerzey jon (talk • contribs) 04:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ESPN.com's Fanboard

message: The following text was posted on RFPP (not the talk page, but the page itself), but as it wasn't appropriate for it to be there, I have moved to here, and will inform the user who posted it. Acalamari 22:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that 2 weeks might be a bit excessive (10 days more than currently needed). Although we haven't considered changing the number of days in a while (and I don't think we need too much dev intervention to do it either). What does everyone else think? -Royalguard11(T·R!) 01:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  From RFPP 

message: There is nothing wrong on the information of the Playstation 3. However, I would like to add that the the following info can be added to the PS3. 
The PS3 has a removable hard drive on all versions and does not void the warranty if taken out. As long as the hard drive you get for your PS3 (yes, you can replace the HDD) is a 2'5 SATA, it will be able to be put into the hard drive slot. The HDD supplied with the PS3 when first bought is a 5400 RPM. If you buy a 7400 RPM HDD, it will be faster, but it could overheat the PS3 faster. None has been known to actually go on fire with this kind of HDD.
:We don't resolve disputes here. Please visit the talk page of the article to ask for something to be changed. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 03:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  From Anik123 on "PS3" 11/11/07

message: Just a question from a new guy. I became a user recently, I just want to know if I will ever be able edit locked articles. (Username): FiercedietylinkX  —Preceding unsigned comment added by FiercedeitylinkX (talk • contribs) 00:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After you become autoconfirmed (4 days after registration) you'll be able to edit semiprotected pages (the majority of Wikipedia pages). You won't be able to edit fully protected pages because they are (temporarily) restricted to admins only. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 03:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ??

message: The article is semi-protected, so I thought I would add here what I think should be in the place of the current information about Dogs in Religion, specifically the Islam section.
Most Islamic schools of thought consider dogs to be unclean1 and the majority of Muslims do not keep pet dogs. There are a number of traditions concerning Muhammad's attitude towards dogs. He allowed them as helpers in hunting, for herding, and for protection2, but said that they voided a portion of a Muslim's good deeds if they lived within the house.3 He advocated kindness to dogs and other animals as it is said that he told his companions about a man who had had his sins forgiven and went to paradise for filling his shoe from a well for a thirsty dog.4
Refs:
1 The position of the Maliki school is that “spittle/saliva of all living animals is pure (even if it is from a dog or a pig). The entire living animal itself is also pure (even if it is a pig or a dog).” – From Guiding Helper, p. 40,  http://www.guidinghelper.com/downloadBooks.cgi 
2 It is related by Abu Huraira (Allah be well pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Whoever acquires a dog, with the exception of a dog for hunting, or guarding sheep, or protecting the harvest, then a large portion of his reward will be diminished every day.” [Reported by Bukhari and Muslim]
3 Abu Talha relates (Allah be well pleased with him), that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said, “The angels do not enter a house that has a dog or a picture.” [Reported by Bukhari and Muslim]
4“While a man was travelling, he felt very thirsty. He found a well and went down to have a drink. When he came out he found a thirsty dog. He said to himself, "This dog is as thirsty as I was." He then went back inside the well and used his shoe to bring out some water for the dog. Allah was pleased with him and forgave his sins because of he had done." [Recorded by Al-Bukhari]
:Please use the talk page of the article in question to raise issues. Any issues raised here will most likely not be investigated. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 04:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Dogs in Religion' -- Islam 

message: Clicking "View source" from Main Page displays (to this non-admin user) the legend, "This page is currently protected, and can only be edited by administrators". <BR>
Speaking as a member of the League of Copy-editors, this should be changed to "This page is currently protected, and can be edited only by administrators."<BR>
This is a fairly fine point that is often skipped, but the literal meaning of:<BR>
:"... can only be edited by administrators" <BR>
is that the only thing that administrators can do with this page is edit it. I. e., they can't read it, laugh at it, or comment on it; they can only edit it and nothing else. <BR>
Putting "only" next to the clause it is intended to modify, "by administrators", as suggested: <BR>
:"can be edited only by administrators." <BR>
means that this page can be edited, but only by administrators, and not by IPs, registered non-admin users, or anyone else. Of course, that is what is intended. Regards, Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *p. s. Of course, you could also put "... can be edited by administrators only.". That may look stilted as a full sentence, but it's seen frequently on signs, e. g. "Authorized personnel only". Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I think people get the point already, but I guess we should at least try to use good grammar. I've updated the page with your suggestion, and also updated the semiprotection message to match the grammar. If you have any other suggestions, the message is actually on Template:MediaWiki protectedpage message (and then transcluded onto the message). Just use  on the talk page and someone should be by shortly after (and if you couldn't tell, my grammar is atrocious). -Royalguard11(T·R!) 06:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for fixing. I agree that the message was clear enough as it was. Sometimes, though, it does make a difference in meaning, so we might as well get in the habit of placing it correctly -- and of setting a good example, especially for the many non-Native English-speakers here. Thanks also for the tips for changing protected pages. So many templates and procedures to learn here! Oh, and as far as your own grammar, didn't notice -- but your friendly League and Help-desk are ready to assist when needed. Unimaginative Username (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So many templates and procedures to learn here! Tell me about it. I had to log-out and view the html-source to find what the MediaWiki page was, which then led me to the template. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 22:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar correction needed for Protection template 

message: If a person is recently deceased, there can be a lot of hysteria over a death as everyone piles on with their source. This is a bad thing, because quite a few recently deceased people have died in murky situtations, which makes the section murky and has resulted in protection before, I think most notably on Chris Benoit and Anna Nicole-Smith. They are alreadt susceptible to vandalism anyway, but unless we can get a definitive cause of death and such, the articles shouldn't be thrown to and fro. Will (talk) 00:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like instruction creep. When someone dies their article often sees the most improvement it has ever seen, as more sources, more eyes, and carpe diem become apparent. You mention edits to some articles after the subject's death has resulted in full protection before, this suggests the policy seems to work fine without this proposed addition, which is probably likely to result in a lot of unnecessary full protection. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with zzuuzz. No need to make it full policy when it's already working. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 18:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed addition to temporary full prot: recently deseaced people