View Single Post
Old 07-27-2013, 09:58 AM   #111
LovesMacs
Fanatic
LovesMacs ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.LovesMacs ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.LovesMacs ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.LovesMacs ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.LovesMacs ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.LovesMacs ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.LovesMacs ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.LovesMacs ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.LovesMacs ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.LovesMacs ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.LovesMacs ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 513
Karma: 2644386
Join Date: Apr 2012
Device: iPhone, Kindle Touch
I'm an occasional Wikipedia editor, and from my understanding, an article can be temporarily protected from editing when there is an edit war over which version is correct. An article can be protected from just new users' edits, or from all edits except for administrators. I believe that during edit wars, pages are fully protected--no edits allowed, and you can't pick which revision stays up during the protection.

I hesitate to request protection myself because of my involvement here.

There is also a three revert rule. This means that any one editor can only revert a single article three times in a 24 hour period, except for removing vandalism. In this case, this can mean either inserting or removing the Controversy section after someone else has done the opposite.

For reference, this is the original edit that introduced the Controversies section. You can see successive changes by clicking the "Next edit-->" link on the right side of your screen.

I should also point out that MobileRead by itself may not be the best source to cite for the controversy. Perhaps in conjunction with other sites, especially if something more widely known (I don't know...maybe CNET?) notices.
LovesMacs is offline   Reply With Quote