Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:RFPP)
Jump to: navigation, search

Spacetime[edit]

www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

There is an error in the variable used in the article. Under Spacetime in Special relativity/Spacetime interval, instead of this text

'Because of the minus sign, the spacetime interval between two distinct events can be zero. If {\displaystyle s^{2}} s^{2} is positive, the spacetime interval is timelike, meaning that two events are 'separated' by more time than space. If {\displaystyle s^{2}} s^{2} is negative, the spacetime interval is spacelike, meaning that two events are separated by more space than time. Spacetime intervals are zero when {\displaystyle s^{2}=\pm ct} {\displaystyle s^{2}=\pm ct}. In other words, the spacetime interval between two events on the world line of something moving at the speed of light is zero. Such an interval is termed lightlike or null. A photon arriving in our eye from a distant star will not have aged, despite having (from our perspective) spent years in its passage.'

it should be

Because of the minus sign, the spacetime interval between two distinct events can be zero. If {\displaystyle s^{2}} s^{2} is positive, the spacetime interval is timelike, meaning that two events are separated by more time than space. If {\displaystyle s^{2}} s^{2} is negative, the spacetime interval is spacelike, meaning that two events are separated by more space than time. Spacetime intervals are zero when {\displaystyle x=\pm ct} {\displaystyle s^{2}=\pm ct}. In other words, the spacetime interval between two events on the world line of something moving at the speed of light is zero. Such an interval is termed lightlike or null. A photon arriving in our eye from a distant star will not have aged, despite having (from our perspective) spent years in its passage.

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Gulf War[edit]

I'm a bit confused about the protection level of Gulf War and I am not familiar with details of page protection. It seems to me that the page is unprotected, but there is a Template:Editnotices/Page/Gulf War which comes up when I edit it, so either the protection level is wrong, or the application of that template is wrong. I ask because there have been a couple of unhelpful edits by IP editors recently that have been reverted. I'm hoping a friendly admin type can help me understand! Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@EdJohnston:. This article was 30/500 protected for 3 months in 2015. Obviously the editnotice was not removed. For now it is not protected. Lectonar (talk) 08:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and the page needs not to be protected right now imho; disruption level is low. Lectonar (talk) 08:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Protection is just one means of enforcement of the somewhat questionable ARBPIA decision. The article was placed under 1RR through ARBPIA in 2010.[1] The 1RR notice was then changed to a template in April 2015[2]. The page was then only semi-protected 2 months later. Six months later the template was modified to add the other restrictions.[3] TBH I'm not sure how this should be properly interpreted, however there's quite a lot of pages which fall under ARBPIA which are not protected, and it's enforced on various articles to varying extents. The protection level and edit notice are not totally inconsistent - it just means it's not enforced through protection. Most of us have learned to live with the inconsistency. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
At Gulf War, random vandalism is still occurring, but not really any POV-pushing. I never had this under WP:ECP, it was only semiprotection. The editnotice (placed in 2010 by User:PhilKnight) which says it is an ARBPIA article and that IPs must not edit is technically correct, as of this moment. I have restored the semiprotection but I could remove it if others disagree. The only long-term warring is from a number of people (registered and not) who want to change 'Gulf War' to 'Persian Gulf War' regardless of the fact that it breaks links. EdJohnston (talk) 14:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

ARBPIA3 500/30[edit]

In a previous discussion, it was decided (with input, if memory serves, from one or two arbitrators) not to EC-protect articles that had not been subject to conflict. When I look at recently protected 2017 Temple Mount shooting, the only evidence of conflict I see is an edit summary that says, "[user] doesn't have authority to edit Palestine/Israel pages so these edits should be reverted". This seems to refer to the disavowed interpretation of ARBPIA3.

Relevant discussion and links:

Should we unarchive and "pin" the relevant discussion? Has consensus changed?

Malinaccier?

Samsara 01:03, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me--I was unaware of that consensus and fully support it. Feel free to unprotect them now, or I can do it when I am next available. Malinaccier P. (talk) 01:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't think we unprotected any last time this came up, so it should be fine. The concern back then was that mass requests could unnecessarily bog us down, and we therefore wouldn't want to encourage them. Best, Samsara 01:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Honestly, either way works for me. My read of the ArbCom case is that they are calling for preemptive protection, but if several of the arbs advised against it....In any case, thanks for the notice! :) Malinaccier (talk) 06:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Cyberbot[edit]

The bot often goes long periods without archiving reports, and instead makes ridiculous edits. See here. Enigmamsg 04:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Another example. The article was protected and the bot comes in after and says it was not. I left several messages for Cyberpower. Enigmamsg 04:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

IP vandalism[edit]

There needs to be some sort of regulation when submitting requests for protection. An IP here had placed a header in-between my header and specific request, making it look like I was requesting protection on a different article. I don't know how long this has been going on, but is there anything administration can do to stop this kind of behavior from happening? This includes editors deleting other users' requests to add their own request. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)