Talk:Pope Benedict XVI/Vandalism

message: This page's content was duped in this edit.  Could someone fix this.  I would have done it myself but it seems to be protected.  AlistairMcMillan 17:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article content dup 

message: There is a duplication at the end of the article can someone who as the authorization fix it? --Astrowob 17:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplication 

message: My personal opinions aside, I don't think a picture of the Emperor from the Star Wars films is an appropriate portrait of the new pope.
*Agreed, now that picture is on IfD. Zscout370 18:17, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: The whole page is currently duplicated threefold, and has been so for a while. Edits have probably been made to all duplicates,. This was the last version before duplication: , Alarm 19:39, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplication 

message: which idiot is messing up the page and massively duplicating sections?
*No idea, but I am hoping this mess will be fixed soon. Right now, I am trying to reorganize this talk page and arhciving a lot of stuff. Zscout370 20:37, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  idiot messing up the page 

message: 1. The photo of Adolf Hitler is misleading.  Yes Mr. Ratzinger was a former Hitler Youth, but the text states this was a requirement by law and not a choice of the young man.  So the Hitler photo is unnecesary.
2.Benedict was considered to be Pope John Paul II's "right hand man" and also one of his closest friends, and during the Pope's final illness, he carried out many of the Pope's functions as leader of the Catholic Church, such as molesting young boys and degrating women.  This sort of speaks for itself.
3. He is the eighth German pope. The last German pope, Adrian VI, was elected in 1522 and died in 1523. He is also the oldest cardinal to become pope since Clement XII, who like Ratzinger was elected at age 78. The reasoning behind picking such a old pope, is simple. They have not yet made up their mind and hope to soon find him dead so they can pick the guy they really want.  Totally inappropriate editorializing in what is supposed to be an encyclopedic article.  
Maybe we should protect this site so that once the news isn't as fresh, there'd be less vandalism. Ramsquire 21:20, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unfortunate Vandalism 

message: === Protection ===
Is it unproteced yet? Because I still see the notice on this page, but about a minute ago I tried clicked the "edit this page" button which was still available and it took me to the edit page. I did not try to submit my edit because I had nothing useful to contribute. 68.126.102.143 22:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know, I see the page as protected as well. I guess it was protected just a few minutes ago. However, since it's not listed in the Protected Page, I really have no idea why it's protected. -- KTC 22:39, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The page has been vandalized just a short period of time ago. It's ok it's protected at this time. --Maxl 22:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Thank you. -- KTC 22:57, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree Nunh-huh, the purpose of the locking feature is not to allow admins to edit the page in relative peace. That may not have been the reason the page was locked, but if that's what's going on then it's against the spirit of Wikipedia: This encyclopedia is meant to be edited by the masses, not by an elite few, and admins shouldn't take advantage of the lock to get priority for their edits. If a page is locked due to constant vandalism or edit war then nobody should be editing it, like Nunh-huh pointed out. If it's locked due to technical problems like the duplication bug, then that should be fixed and then it should be unlocked. -Eisnel 23:48, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  From Archive 03 

message: Is it unproteced yet? Because I still see the notice on this page, but about a minute ago I tried clicked the "edit this page" button which was still available and it took me to the edit page. I did not try to submit my edit because I had nothing useful to contribute. 68.126.102.143 22:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: I get a "page protected" message but I can see that others are editing the page. Adam 22:34, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know, I see the page as protected as well. I guess it was protected just a few minutes ago. However, since it's not listed in the Protected Page, I really have no idea why it's protected. -- KTC 22:39, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The page has been vandalized just a short period of time ago. It's ok it's protected at this time. --Maxl 22:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What is going on?

message: What is going on is out of order and I suspect in contradiction of various wikipedia policies. I have bought the locking of this page to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, where it should be discussed. i hope the people locking are not editing, and will scrutinise closely. this article needs opening now to everyone to edit. That way we keep our reputation as a source of up to date material and utilise the great energy to edit this page, --SqueakBox 22:48, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree with SqueakBox.  I just looked through the page history and the "vandalism" was no such thing.  Small inaccuracies does not equal vandalism -- and the few times something started being entered with POV it was quick removed.  So what's the problem?  Quasipalm 22:53, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. -- KTC 22:57, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree Nunh-huh, the purpose of the locking feature is not to allow admins to edit the page in relative peace. That may not have been the reason the page was locked, but if that's what's going on then it's against the spirit of Wikipedia: This encyclopedia is meant to be edited by the masses, not by an elite few, and admins shouldn't take advantage of the lock to get priority for their edits. If a page is locked due to constant vandalism or edit war then nobody should be editing it, like Nunh-huh pointed out. If it's locked due to technical problems like the duplication bug, then that should be fixed and then it should be unlocked. -Eisnel 23:48, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Locked Unfairly

message: The page was locked i think because some idiots were vandalising the page with anti-german phrases and slogans. I saw these but they were removed quickly so may not have been noticed.
There are people watching the page to revert vandalism. The positive effects of keeping the páge open far outway the brief vandalisms, --SqueakBox 23:10, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
*I would not be surprised if this talk page has been blanked by a vandal. You know what, it might have been, already, since I tried to edit something, then the page went blank except for two words "Seig Heil" in all caps. Zscout370 23:33, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  vandalism