On Sunday 01 February 2004 02:46 pm, Anthere wrote:
Sascha Noyes a écrit:
On Sunday 01 February 2004 01:33 pm, Anthere wrote:
Could someone have a look at the conflict over Alexander Lukashenko, between Adam Carr and 172. And give their opinion ? I hardly dare to say it, but I reverted to a version that is anterior to december 2003, to insure it was "somehow" stable.
Does it matter _that much_ which version a page is protected on? I'd argue that it matters less than breaking rule # 2 of the page protection policy.
Best, Sascha Noyes
I checked what was rule number 2. I saw it was "never protect if you have edited the page"
I suppose you are trying to tell me now that I have broken rule number 2 in reverting the article to a previous state while protecting it ?
I never edited the article before I made that reversion. I am *absolutely* not interested by this article This morning I answered to a request of Adam Carr for mediation. Mav and I told him there were other steps before mediation.
It is correct that you were not involved in the dispute. I just had a knee-jerk reaction to seeing someone revert a page to a particular version, and then protecting it. (Having seen 168.. do that on [[DNA]] just yesterday - a dispute in which they were involved). For this I apologise.
This evening, I saw no progress, only reversions going on. I thought in my innocence, that I could protect a page I had never edited once, since I saw Adam and 172 reverting it on turn. Bad move !
Last time I protected a page, I was very coldly told I did wrong, because I protected the current version, and not the stable version. So, as a good girl, I am careful this time to protect the stable version, and to list the page in the protected pages And I did not do the right think again ???
I don't see anything on [[Wikipedia:Protection policy]] about reverting to a "stable version" before protecting a page, so I don't see what the people telling you to revert to a stable version would have based this on. I do, however, see on the policy page that:
"In addition, admins should try to avoid favoring one version of the article over another, unless of course, one version is trolling or vandalism in which case you don't want to protect that version. However, it is best to let someone else do the reversion to maintain some distance."
Which would seem to contradict what they told you.
Want me to be very strongly honest here ?
No, I won't, I might break a rule of basic politeness.
I don't have a problem with you expressing your honest opinion, and appreciate the fact that you were obviously not concerned which version of the page should be displayed, but rather that you wanted to end the reversion war.
Best, Sascha Noyes