Talk:Pope Benedict XVI/Vandalism

This page lists the messages that either dealt with or is considered vandalism under Wikipedia policies that is related to the article on Benedict XVI.

From Archive 01

Article content dup

This page's content was duped in this edit. Could someone fix this. I would have done it myself but it seems to be protected. AlistairMcMillan 17:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To whoever protected this article

Can we change that né (1st sentence) to born; it is better and simpler english. I was trying to make the change when the page was protected. -- Chris j wood 17:11, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is not Better English, look at the né article and you will see that it is very adequate and it is the term used for all the preceding popes --Astrowob 17:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The né article says:

The French word née (feminine) or né (masculine) (sometimes written as nee by English speakers) is still commonly used in some newspapers when mentioning the former or maiden name of an individual in engagement or wedding announcements, and is sometimes archly extended to denote earlier names of companies and products.

which doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement (some newspapers, archly) of the wording myself. And the article on Pope John Paul II definately uses 'born' not 'né'. I was in process of editing this article to the same format as that when the protection came down. It looks like it is academic now, as an administrator has obviously made the change I was trying to make whilst the article was protected. -- Chris j wood 18:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Duplication

There is a duplication at the end of the article can someone who as the authorization fix it? --Astrowob 17:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also, the categories need to be ammended. Kevin Rector (talk) 17:17, Apr 19, 2005

There is a duplication at the begining of the article.--Zigamorph 21:10, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

There is no 80 year age limit on popes being elected - technically any male Roman Catholic can be elected.

Devout anarchist?

Seems to be a (bad taste) joke. Conservative catholic is more accurate

From Archive 02

Vandalism

My personal opinions aside, I don't think a picture of the Emperor from the Star Wars films is an appropriate portrait of the new pope.

Agreed, now that picture is on IfD. Zscout370 18:17, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the "devout anarchist" slur, someone needs to grow up.

I did not remove it, but your welcome. With a page like this, there will be many vandals, and so will be many people trying to revert everything that they do. Zscout370 19:14, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Duplication

The whole page is currently duplicated threefold, and has been so for a while. Edits have probably been made to all duplicates,. This was the last version before duplication: [1], Alarm 19:39, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

~~I fixed the problem, Alarm. If there is anything that is new that I might have taken out accidentally, then go ahead and add new entries. Zscout370 19:44, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)~~
Note, I am still doing this. See me on my talk page if you have any issues. Zscout370 19:57, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article is in a hell of a mess. I assume that you who blocked it from editing are going to sort it out yourself??? Arcturus 19:59, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have no admin powers, plus I should have clarified that the only page that I am clearing duplicates on is this one. But no matter what, both pages are a hell of a mess and will take a while to fix. Zscout370 20:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

UNPROTECT

Who protected this page??? The image doesn't show because the image tag is duplicated: image:image:. FIX NOW AND UNPROTECT!! Cantus…☎ 19:59, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

WOW, this article is one BIG mess. Admins please sort this mess out and then unprotect!! Cantus…☎ 20:02, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

I am sure they are trying to do that. I just hope this will not screw up Wikipedia's reputation. Zscout370 20:06, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So help me God, I will keep this page protected as long as I have to to fix the rampant doubling. I protected it for a few minutes (~8-10) to fix up to tripling in some areas; it took some doing, since people continued to add info. It's not helpful when admin continue to edit a protected page, even though they are warned to. (No reason to waste time putting up a "this page is protected" message, that as well as the servers are running right now that would have taken too much time, and contributed to my own edit conflicts). I fixed the first doubling, then just now protected to fix another round of doubling which was thankfully fixed just before I protected. I will continue doing this every time doubling occurs which isn't immediately remedied; if you have a better idea, I'd love to hear it. --Golbez 20:11, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Golbez, copy and paste everything into a text document (go to edit this page, press Ctrl and A, then paste it into a Notepad document). Save it, and when problems arise, go to edit this page, open up the Notepad file, then copy and paste from there. It is almost like having a local backup. Zscout370 20:21, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Page renamed to follow Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) on cardinals. FearÉIREANN 02:28 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Note: Please sign all entries with the four tildes ~~~~. Thank you. Zscout370 20:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Archive for Resolved Issues. Zscout370 20:30, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

idiot messing up the page

which idiot is messing up the page and massively duplicating sections?

No idea, but I am hoping this mess will be fixed soon. Right now, I am trying to reorganize this talk page and arhciving a lot of stuff. Zscout370 20:37, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

and why is the messed up page protected!!?
Once again, no idea why, but this is starting to piss me off. Zscout370 20:41, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Who is doing it? Why can't we just block this vandal?

I protected the page so I could clean up the duplicates without encountering edit conflicts. AndyL 21:10, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunate Vandalism

1. The photo of Adolf Hitler is misleading. Yes Mr. Ratzinger was a former Hitler Youth, but the text states this was a requirement by law and not a choice of the young man. So the Hitler photo is unnecesary.

2.Benedict was considered to be Pope John Paul II's "right hand man" and also one of his closest friends, and during the Pope's final illness, he carried out many of the Pope's functions as leader of the Catholic Church, such as molesting young boys and degrating women. This sort of speaks for itself.

3. He is the eighth German pope. The last German pope, Adrian VI, was elected in 1522 and died in 1523. He is also the oldest cardinal to become pope since Clement XII, who like Ratzinger was elected at age 78. The reasoning behind picking such a old pope, is simple. They have not yet made up their mind and hope to soon find him dead so they can pick the guy they really want. Totally inappropriate editorializing in what is supposed to be an encyclopedic article.

Maybe we should protect this site so that once the news isn't as fresh, there'd be less vandalism. Ramsquire 21:20, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We must NOT protect this site. Our reputation as an encyclopedia is based on our ability to react to change. People tried it on with John Paul II, and the protection was reverted, resulting in a transformed article. There is a huge energy for this article right now, and we must nopt waste it, --SqueakBox 19:23, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Plus, as Squeak said, many people are going to target current event stories, since many people will come up and look at these articles. I would also like to point out that the vandalism is reverted in seconds, so we should be fine for right now. Zscout370 19:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wenn ich schlafe, spielen auf meiner Zunge Pinguine Harfe - Taktloss

Sorry for the previous anon post. I always forget to sign in. If you guys are on top of the vandalism, then I guess it's unnecessary to protect the site. Vandalism is the one major drawback to the whole wiki-experiment. But I guess it's the price to pay in an open forum like this. Ramsquire 21:20, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) _________________________________________________________________

While many theologians strive for a Catholic Church that is more open and in touch with the world around it, Ratzinger’s mission is to stamp out dissent, and curb the “wild excesses” of this more tolerant era.

He wields the tools of his office with steely efficiency. By influencing diocese budgets, bishops’ transfers and even excommunications, what an opponent calls “symbolic violence”, Ratzinger has clamped down on the more radical contingent of the Church.

He has even claimed the prime position of the Church of Rome over other Christian Churches. Although he has apologised for this, he has never been so contrite about excluding liberation theologians, more progressive priests or those in favour of the ordination of women.

Thank you for not posting this stuff in the actual article, anon-user, but maybe if you have cites backing this info up, you can add a detractor section to the article. It might be helpful to present a balanced profile. Ramsquire 21:20, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From Archive 03

Protection

Is it unproteced yet? Because I still see the notice on this page, but about a minute ago I tried clicked the "edit this page" button which was still available and it took me to the edit page. I did not try to submit my edit because I had nothing useful to contribute. 68.126.102.143 22:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article is unprotected. Either everyone edits, or no one edits. That's what a protected page is. Administrators are expected to respect protection and not edit pages when they are protected. - Nunh-huh 22:59, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What is going on?

I get a "page protected" message but I can see that others are editing the page. Adam 22:34, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't know, I see the page as protected as well. I guess it was protected just a few minutes ago. However, since it's not listed in the Protected Page, I really have no idea why it's protected. -- KTC 22:39, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Adam, I know you asked this many times. Here is my reply: Only the admins are editing it, since this page has a high rate of vandalism. Once that threat is gone away, then we can try to make our edits. I know there are some things I have done to the page that got wiped out, but I will add them once this protection is lifted. Until then, just present what sources you have here, and I am sure they will come up on the article in the next few days. Plus, it was explained that the admins decided to protect the page w/o putting the tag in, thus, that is why it is not listed at protected pages. Zscout370 22:43, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- With or without a tag here, I thought all protected page is suppose to be listed at protected page with the reasoning. Where was this comments by admins you're referring? Any possibilities for a link so I can read whatever was said? -- KTC 22:51, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't see a page protection message but I don't get an edit tab, either. Jonathunder 22:44, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

The page has been vandalized just a short period of time ago. It's ok it's protected at this time. --Maxl 22:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is not okay to protect this page. please can someone unlock it. --SqueakBox 22:50, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Most of the recent protections of this page have been brief (2-8 minutes) for the express purpose of cleaning up page duplication due to the section bug. It was protected for 'vandalism' from 22:15, 19 Apr 2005 to 22:53, 19 Apr 2005 when it was unprotected. See Special:Log/protect. Niteowlneils 22:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Page Locked Unfairly

What is going on is out of order and I suspect in contradiction of various wikipedia policies. I have bought the locking of this page to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, where it should be discussed. i hope the people locking are not editing, and will scrutinise closely. this article needs opening now to everyone to edit. That way we keep our reputation as a source of up to date material and utilise the great energy to edit this page, --SqueakBox 22:48, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with SqueakBox. I just looked through the page history and the "vandalism" was no such thing. Small inaccuracies does not equal vandalism -- and the few times something started being entered with POV it was quick removed. So what's the problem? Quasipalm 22:53, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

... While I don't like protecting or blocking pages, sometimes it is necessary to keep the integrity of the article. Since this story happened today, many people are checking out the site (which is good) and adding rumors and other unverifiable items (which is bad). I personally think that to stop this and the vandalism, there should be some control of the site. Oh, I think the following which was on the site but now thankfully removed would be considered vandalism ....Benedict was considered to be Pope John Paul II's "right hand man" and also one of his closest friends, and during the Pope's final illness, he carried out many of the Pope's functions as leader of the Catholic Church, such as molesting young boys and degrating women. .... He is the eighth German pope. The last German pope, Adrian VI, was elected in 1522 and died in 1523. He is also the oldest cardinal to become pope since Clement XII, who like Ratzinger was elected at age 78. The reasoning behind picking such a old pope, is simple. They have not yet made up their mind and hope to soon find him dead so they can pick the guy they really want. Totally inappropriate editorializing in what is supposed to be an encyclopedic article. .... Poop Benedict XVI.Ramsquire 23:57, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's entirely inappropriate to have an "admin edit only" page. Either all can edit it, or none should. Policy is "Do not edit a temporarily protected page except to add a protected page notice." (we probably should have an exception for repairing our frequent duplication problem, but at present, we don't). It's entirely inappropriate to have a "sliently" protected page, as well. The reason given in the protection log for the latest protection is "Under some vandalism - seems hard to handle." As we can handle vandalism just fine, and since administrators have continued to edit it while in its protected state, I will unprotect it. - Nunh-huh 22:54, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. -- KTC 22:57, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree Nunh-huh, the purpose of the locking feature is not to allow admins to edit the page in relative peace. That may not have been the reason the page was locked, but if that's what's going on then it's against the spirit of Wikipedia: This encyclopedia is meant to be edited by the masses, not by an elite few, and admins shouldn't take advantage of the lock to get priority for their edits. If a page is locked due to constant vandalism or edit war then nobody should be editing it, like Nunh-huh pointed out. If it's locked due to technical problems like the duplication bug, then that should be fixed and then it should be unlocked. -Eisnel 23:48, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

... But should anyone have to constantly check out an article everyday to make sure it hasn't been vandalised. BTW-- When I joined wiki, I was told to make suggested changes in the discussion page first so that everyone can discuss and edit before changing the article. If everyone followed that wiki rule, we wouldn't need to block pages, except for technical problems. Ramsquire 23:57, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

vandalism

The page was locked i think because some idiots were vandalising the page with anti-german phrases and slogans. I saw these but they were removed quickly so may not have been noticed.

There are people watching the page to revert vandalism. The positive effects of keeping the páge open far outway the brief vandalisms, --SqueakBox 23:10, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

I would not be surprised if this talk page has been blanked by a vandal. You know what, it might have been, already, since I tried to edit something, then the page went blank except for two words "Seig Heil" in all caps. Zscout370 23:33, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)