Talk:Louis Braille/Archive 1

High traffic
rbd is bettter!!!!!!!!! For Future reference, logo is here: --Theone3 11:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism + Protection
This page has been protected from editing due to major vandalism by people with nothing better to do. As much as this encyclopaedia would like to be "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", It seems that as per usual, there are a few out there that want to ruin it for the rest of us.

It's not all bad though, you can sign up for an account today and edit anything, and if you have any contributions you'd like to make, '''this discussion page is not locked. ''' --Theone3 12:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Why has the sprotected tag been removed? The page was instantly vandalised again! --Theone3 13:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * sProtected tag has returned. Phew. --Theone3 14:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

More Vandalism
Can somebody show me how to protect the logo summary text for a picture. Some fool called "Josh" keeps replacing the summary for the Google logo in Braille into his name. Childish fool.


 * I have blocked the IP who did it. But we don't want to use the google image for copyright reasons. And the braille image we have is fine. Shanes 13:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You should really protect the articles and only allow them to be edited by submission. IMO, this is what keeps Wikipedia from being the first source I go to for information. 4 January 2006 (Anon )


 * They are now protected from anonymous entrants. --Theone3 14:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism continues, and some details have been obscured by editors correcting poorly. Would someone who has time please look over Feb-Mar 2008 and find the good writing and wikilinks that have been dropped? Snezzy (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Links
The Life of Louis Braille is in bold because in this high-traffic period, it provides a better history. Recently the link was removed. before returning it, I checked that the IP address and it did not resolve to the place that hosts the link. It resolved to the USA. I'd ask that anyone else investigating the removal of the link does the same courtesy to the company by checking that the IP does not resolve to them here. -- Theone3 11:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism (Old Discussion)
Since it is Louis Braille's birthday, many visitors are here from google, and the article is being vandalized like crazy! Can we get some protection or something? --Kotjze | Talk 09:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Someone has protected the story. I'm not sure who has editing rights, but I do know that I do. I'm watching this page. --Theone3 09:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It's incredible. He goes to google, sees a man who helps blind people and then vandalizes an article on him... where is the brain in it?

We usually try to avoid protecting articles when they are linked to from high trafic sites. Many anons coming here might have constructive edits to make. And I belive we are still the encyclopedia that everyone can edit.... Reverting vandalism is easy. And that protect template is so damed ugly! So, I'll unprotect it and see how it goes if people don't mind. Shanes 10:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * VERY BAD IDEA. This has been tried and has already failed. Vandalism was absolutely rife. This page must be getting 1000's of hits per second. It's not worth risking people's view of our integrity for the possibility of a slightly better article. Wikipedia's already got bad press...--Theone3 10:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem seems to have been handled very nicely by semiprotection. - Nunh-huh 11:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Protection is back. Theone3 FTW :D --Theone3 12:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Protection is gone again. :( --Theone3 12:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * A page isn't protected by simply adding the (ugly) protect tag. Protection is done by an admin, the tag is inserted in the text only to inform. Regarding this page, and other like it that experience links from high trafic sites, we want to keep them open because we are an encyclopedia that everyone can edit. And geting lot's of new readers seeing that we indeed are an encyclopedia that everyone can edit is good. It might be that we have to give up in some cases, but as long as possible I'd like to try keeping this open. But if any other admin disagree and want to protect it, go ahead, and I'll keep quiet. Shanes 12:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hope you all know that they can still edit the pictures...

sprotect

 * Do we really want to sProtect when we're getting so much traffic from google? Good time to get new contributors.  We just have to stay on top of rollback.  I'm willing to do my part while on-line.  Wikibofh(talk) 14:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I like your thinking. Kappa 14:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm going to go and get a drink (regrettably, not that kind) and then will unprotect and open in a few tabs so I can rollback quickly. Give me 5 minutes.  Anyone else wants to join in, feel free.  Wikibofh(talk) 14:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It's done. Watching.  Wikibofh(talk) 14:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Great! I'm all with you on that. I want it kept unprotected for the same reasons as you and have unprotected it myself ones already. I'll help watching it some more before I need some sleep. Shanes
 * It's going fine. I'm right on it and still have been too slow on two reverts now, and even the warnings to the user.  :)  Wikibofh(talk) 15:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Damn. 0 for 3 now on the reverts.  I'm even getting beat by non-admins.  :)  Wikibofh(talk) 15:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Suppose we should use for the first message to new anons instead of test?  Then followup with test.  Normally I test first, but might be better in this case.  Wikibofh(talk) 15:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd go with  - it's not in any way threatening, and  might even be overwhelming for a first-timer just seeing if they really can edit here. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 16:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm AFK for about an hour. I'll be back on after that and will keep working on it.  Wikibofh(talk) 18:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The semi-protection policy was created for exactly the type of vandalism we have been experiencing here. We are not losing any editors by semi-protecting an article which is being vandalised multiple times per minute by multiple IP addresses.  On the contrary, we are probably losing readership and credibility when they come to this article by way of Google and find something offensive.  Semi-protection is being reinstated for this reason.  Hall Monitor 19:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree with about everything you say. When we get a link from google like this it's a perfect chanse to get new editors involved. Now they can't edit it at all. Semi protection is ok for pages like GW Bush and Hitler and such often vandalised articles, but when get high trafic cause of things like that we should welcome it and show our new readers what wikipedia is: An encyclopedia that everyone can edit. And with so many people watching this today we also show how quickly vandalism is reverted. But since I've already unprotected this article twice today and don't want to get into a revert-war over it, I'll leave it to other admins to open it again if they agree with me, wikibofh, Kappa, etc. Shanes 19:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * So, you disagree that we lose potential readership when people visit Wikipedia for the first time and find something offensive rather than informational content about Louis Braille? It also should be noted that the degree to which this page is being vandalised makes it difficult for honest editors to contribute.  Hall Monitor 19:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It's the same argument (basicaly) as to why we don't protect todays FA. Raul has a page somewhere listing the reasons when people ask why we let it stay open despite it always being vandalised alot. Sure, there are moments (seconds) when the page is in a vandlised state, but we make up for it by showing all the new readers what wikipedia is. Many good edits on this page today has come from new users. And many have been standard test-edits from confused users surprised that they can edit. I am happy for both. And to add to that, the sprotect template is too ugly for words. It ruins the whole article. Shanes 19:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You failed to answer my question. Do you disagree that we lose new readership as a result of the extreme problem this article is currently having with vandalism right now?  Please provide diffs of anonymous users making positive contributions, if you do not mind.  Hall Monitor 19:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What we can't tell is how many people click "Edit this page" and then cancel, so we have no way to measure. I view this as an extreme FA, not an extreme GWB.  There have been some positive anon edits today (I've seen them) but admit they are needles in the chaff (if you'll excuse me for mixing metaphors).  Wikibofh(talk) 20:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Readership? I don't know. But I'm quite sure we lose readership on having the article start with that hiddious protection box smeared all over. (But I've ranted enough about that today). But, fine, I agree that this is being vandalised extremely much. And I might be wrong about what is best. Go ahead and protect it again if you relly think it's best. I don't, but I'm tired of arguing. About positive new/anon user-edits, I can't bother to find them, but as I've been watching this article edit for edit for some 8 hours today and I think know something about its history. It has been interesting to watch it grow, and I think we've m,anaged to keep it under controll just fine. Shanes 20:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Speaking as someone who dedicates at least 40 hours a week toward maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia, I can tell you that we have not been keeping it under control just fine, and that semi-protecting this article is and was well warranted. Hall Monitor 20:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey--thought you'd might like to hear from a new reader: I thought you guys might be over-looking the potentially positive benefits having the protect template there.  A lot of readers, myself included, worry that the principle liability with Wikipedia is that it's open to things like vandalism.  When I saw the template at the top of the page, I actually felt a little reasured that the legitimate community was both willing and able to respond to things like vandalism as quickly as they have.  I would consider this a boon to the site, because it lets users know that there is a system in place to protect the integrity of the Wikipedia from the small percentage of people out there that would attempt to corrupt it.  Just food for thought :) 65.249.152.15 21:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That is something that had not occured to me.Geni 21:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 40 hours a week? Maybe you should get a job. 167.1.163.100
 * Looks like he has one. Wikibofh(talk) 21:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * still the tail end of the uni holidays right now. I suspect we have quite a few people spending insane amounts of time editing.Geni 21:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

lock
THIS PAGE NEEDS TO BE LOCKED DOWN NOW! IT IS CONSTANTLY BEING REVERTED TO LUDE, OBSCENE PICTURES. IT HAS BEEN CHANGED BACK TO ITS ORIGINAL CONTENT, BUT FOR HOW LONG WHO KNOWS!? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.248.208.61 (talk • contribs).

moved from top of page. Sorry for the revert. - BanyanTree 20:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Protection
The viewing rate on this article is so high that even the best efforts of the anti vandlims editors are not enough (at least juding by the the emails I'm getting from people who noticed). As a result I've locked it down. Probably should not be pulled untill about 3 am UTC.Geni 20:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * *sigh* Ok.  The effort has been heroic.  I will rejoin if another admin wants to unprotect, but will not do it myself.  Wikibofh(talk) 20:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The effort, while heroic, should have been put to a halt several hours ago; it was a waste of admin resources. Know when to say when and move on.  Hall Monitor 20:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Are we skipping the sprotect template? Wikibofh(talk) 20:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * With the profile of this article right now I'm prepared to bend the rules to make it look good. Of course if anyone wants to put the template there I'm not going to object. And could someone protect the images please?Geni 20:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've put up the template on the general principle that the status of articles should be readily apparent, though I admit I'm not entirely happy about it from a PR perspective. At least the sheer ugliness of it gives admins extra incentive to unprotect as soon as possible.  Somebody else has already protected the images. - BanyanTree 21:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I got the images, haven't had time to list them on pages or mark. Saw someone else marked though.  (I'm on a conference call)  Wikibofh(talk) 21:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm delighted to see that the page is protected. Although a certain amount of soul-searching among regular contributors and hall monitors is honorable, I think we get the point: the page needs to be protected until the Google-storm dies down.  A potential contributor with something useful to add (someone like me, in other words) is more likely to be turned off by idiotic vandalism than a message explaining temporary protection. Quelrat 21:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Lee S. Svoboda tɑk 23:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 07:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

please HELP!!!!!!
i need help finding more things out about louis braille. thank you for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giggles26047 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

please HELP!!!!!
looking for more things about Louis Brialle. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giggles26047 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

lousi braloe
ola megos welcom e —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.103.237 (talk) 00:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from Smugderby, 21 May 2010
Please remove the meaningless phrase "he really liked it u the butt" at the end of the section entitled Development of the Braille System, just before Death and Honors. It's an incomplete sentence that doesn't make any sense.

Smugderby (talk) 07:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅, thanks. Algebraist 10:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)