Talk:Audrey Geisel

Page history messed up after semi-protection request
The discussion below is copied for posterity, and further discussion here, from the WP:RFP rolling archive. {{quote frame|quote=

Audrey Geisel
Indefinite semi-protection: Audrey Geisel is a simple redirect (to a section in the article about her husband, Dr. Seuss) which is unlikely to ever require much, if any, editing, and is a frequent target of vandalism by IPs with an apparent ax to grind about this person             --В²C ☎ 20:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Done Enigmamsg 20:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a redlink now? Was it removed? Why? --В²C ☎ 20:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I was confused about this as well...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   20:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, it has been restored now, but much of the original history is missing. All of the vandalism edits are gone, which is good, but the latest version is from 2017 and there were legit updates since then having to do with categories and templates that changed after she passed. --В²C ☎ 21:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've restored the Dec 2018 edit I believe was talking about and pushed it forward over the recent correction, noting that the difference arises because of the temporary deletion. It looked like the other edits were reverting vandalism back and forth, so my thinking would be they don't need to be restored, but correct me if I missed anything. Samsara 22:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Enigmaman, Samsara - Why was this page deleted? And why is it only being partially restored? Why are we keeping parts of the edit history deleted? No rationale was given in the deletion log, and I'm confused as to what's going on and exactly why. Can you explain so that I understand? :-) Thanks -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   22:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not understand it either, so I restored the one edit that B2C seemed to be referring to and that seemed completely safe and innocuous. The principle being, if you don't understand it, try and be conservative around it until someone can clarify. Samsara 06:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Samsara - Muuuuch better, thank you! :-D  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   07:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm still not sure why it was deleted in the first place; RfD is the way to delete redirects, not this does not need a page and creation protection. Selective restoration upon questioning left the vandalistic edits deleted, but that's not really the question here. ~  Amory  (u • t • c) 18:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Re-pinging Samsara 04:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , the result of re-adding the other edits is helpful (thank you!) but makes my latest edit (from today) not only moot but looks counter-productive. Could it be deleted? --В²C ☎ 23:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I asked about this deletion shortly after it happened at Enigman's talk page and didn't receive an answer but the page was then partially restored. I would like to learn what PAG supported the actions here because I find it troubling. My opinion is the full history should be restored as I am unaware of anything that would need RevDel on the other edits of this article. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * if there is a full restore please leave out my latest edit which is out of sequence and nonsensical if it remains. —В²C ☎ 03:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay everyone, what's our consensus here? Full restore? Minus one edit per B2C or not? Samsara 13:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I see no value in restoring all the reverted vandal edits but am not strongly opposed. I think it’s fine the way it is currently, except for my now-distorted edit... —В²C ☎ 15:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC) changed my mind; see below. --В²C ☎ 19:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think restoring the page history is the right thing to do - editors should be able to see WHY it was protected. Not restoring B2C's edit is obviously fine. I will point out, however, that we have nodeadline here and since Enigman hasn't been active for the last couple of days I see no reason not to let him have a chance to respond first. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You're right; I agree. --В²C ☎ 19:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

}} Pinging participants:, , ,
 * Hopefully the pings work this time. --В²C ☎ 01:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I, for one, still would like to see the full history restored.
 * Yes my feelings remain the same from 24 February. Also a note, I don't think your pings worked (or at least I didn't get one). Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Huh. I thought the u template pinged.  I changed them to literal pings. Let me know if you got one now. Thanks. --В²C ☎ 01:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've used u for pings before but yes I got this second one. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I did some research starting at Template:u. The notification happens only if you add text and sign it. That explains a lot about notifications that didn't happen in the past. --В²C ☎ 01:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect name throughout
Good day. Audrey’s name is replaced by Geisel’s (second husband/Dr. Seuss) name in several areas. Makes for a confusing read. 2603:8081:D00:2EDE:41F1:C310:C2A7:73A9 (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello. Could you be specific, please? I have just been back through it and can't find anywhere where she isn't Geisel and he not Seuss. I would appreciate a pointer so I can clarify things. Thanks BJCHK (talk) 13:25, 24 September 2023 (UTC)