On 12/18/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 06:49:11 +0100,
"MacGyverMagic/Mgm"
<macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Since when is something getting tedious for admins
a reason not to do it? If
it's a mainpage non-article vandal target, it should be protected - no
exceptions.
The obvious is never a problem, as my dad always says.
Guy (JzG)
I have to agree. I saw a certain penis image when I logged on the
other day and it gave me quite a start. I haven't seen that kind of
thing in a while. As long as the article itself get protected, we
shouldn't beat around the bush as to what to protect or not to
protect. If a template has to get subst'd I guess that is fine too.
Better we have messy code that people can't see right away than shock
images that they can.
--Ryan