[WikiEN-l] Film article obscene image vandalism?

[crock spot]

I see no reason not to. Anything that has the potential for transcluding
vandalism all over hell and back, and isn't currently being worked on by an
editor who has requested unprotection, should be protected. Common sense.

cs

On Dec 15, 2007 1:58 PM, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 15/12/2007, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 15/12/2007, Casey Brown <cbrown1023.ml at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > It's been fixed, it was caused by vandalism to this template:
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Mojo_title which put the
> > > "Image:Vagina-anatomy1" at the top of all pages with that template.
> > > The template in question is now protected and the user blocked.
> >
> > Mmm. I pre-emptively blocked a second template, too.
> >
> > I wonder if it might be worth reminding the mailing-list about
> > transcluded template vandalism and the importance of protecting
> > heavily used templates...
>
> ...for what it's worth, we have over a thousand templates transcluded
> more than 2,800 times - even allowing for duplication and for some not
> being "reader-facing", that's still a heck of a lot. Is there any
> reason I shouldn't roll through protecting the high-use ones?
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
>  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>