Talk:William Rehnquist: Difference between revisions
Bancroftian (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
NoSeptember (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
==Unlock== |
==Unlock== |
||
When all this news is coming in it is vital that we do not have it locked. I would like to gain a general consensus to unlock it imeditatly. [[Use:Bancroftian|Bancroftian]] 14:36, 4 September 2005 (UTC) |
When all this news is coming in it is vital that we do not have it locked. I would like to gain a general consensus to unlock it imeditatly. [[Use:Bancroftian|Bancroftian]] 14:36, 4 September 2005 (UTC) |
||
:I agree that long term locks on potentially active pages are not appropriate. A lock for an hour until a vandal loses interest is ok, I hope that this was the blocking admin's intent. If the image file is being vandalized, then that should be locked instead. Blocking the vandals is better than locking an active page. [[User:NoSeptember|<font color = green>'''NoSeptember'''</font>]] 14:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 14:50, 4 September 2005
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the William Rehnquist article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3 |
- talk page archive
Clinton Picture
The caption under the picture of Clinton's inauguration refers to it being from 1993. On the actual picture page, it refers to the picture being taken
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the William Rehnquist article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3 |
- talk page archive
Clinton Picture
The caption under the picture of Clinton's inauguration refers to it being from 1993. On the actual picture page, it refers to the picture being taken in 1997. I'm assuming the latter is more reliable, but I have no idea. It's certainly something that needs to be looked at and corrected at some point. --Doctorcherokee 14:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Vandalism of article.
Two of my attempts to revert a vandalization of this article met with editing conflicts that themselves contained clear POV vanalization. I think we need the higher ups at Wikipedia to step in here.
- No need to worry about vandalism. This article will now be closely watched for quite a while, and vandalism will be quickly reverted. NoSeptember 04:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
How can we protect an article from edits when news is changing so quickly???
- Admins can still edit the article. If you're not an admin, suggest an edit or addition here and it will be dealt with. Homey 13:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Lock
We can't have the article locked when alot of news is going to be coming in. Please, I need a consensus to unlock the article. And fast. User:Bancroftian
- I already have. It was locked for only about 60 seconds. →Raul654 04:08, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks alot, you did that fast. User:Bancroftian.
Potential nominees
Is there an article somewhere about the potential nominees ?
O'Connor
"The vacancy left by his death came less than two months after the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor"
O'Connor announced her retirement on July 1st so it was actually 2 months and 2 days later. User:129.123.104.6
- Well, this is a wiki, so you can change it yourself. Just click the "edit this page" link at the top of the article. --pile0nadestalk | contribs 05:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
goodbye
i may not have agreed with him ideologically, but he was a great man, i have to admit it. he wasn't not a dna-altered clone like roberts is. rest in peace. -Nosaj56 13:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Unlock
When all this news is coming in it is vital that we do not have it locked. I would like to gain a general consensus to unlock it imeditatly. Bancroftian 14:36, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- I agree that long term locks on potentially active pages are not appropriate. A lock for an hour until a vandal loses interest is ok, I hope that this was the blocking admin's intent. If the image file is being vandalized, then that should be locked instead. Blocking the vandals is better than locking an active page. NoSeptember 14:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)