Talk:Mary Rose/2013/May

Poorly written
Examples abound, but just in the intro: 1. She was discovered, not 'rediscovered'. 2. She most certainly was not 'one of the earliest examples of a purpose-built sailing warship' - these had existed for centuries. 3. The excavation and salvage WERE, not 'was' (does nobody understand the difference between the singular and the plural any more?).

The whole 'Modern theories' section would fail as a school essay due to its poor grammar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 22:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

It's time to unlock this article. It violates "wikipedian values".
The article was locked (indefinitely!) in March. The reason given was "persistent vandalism". By that reason, the whole of Wikipedia should be locked. If there really was "persistent vandalism", that's the fault of the vandal(s), not the article. Blocks are done as a matter of routine against vandals. The action should be against them, not against the article and other well meaning contributors. This "general warrant" of a lock is a violation of the fundamentals of how Wikipedia is supposed to operate.

Also, any lock like this needs to be more specific as to its reasons and limited in time (with the time set at the beginning of the lock). Blocks against vandals are done like that. Otherwise, it just becomes an unbalanced, indefinitely long game of begging an admin (probably the (biased) locking admin) to "please sir will you unlock this"?

This lock was misplaced to begin with. It needs to end.

108.7.0.7 (talk) 16:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Why not just create an account? Ian Dalziel (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

My point (above) would be the same whether I signed it as a logged-on or as an IP. Would you have come back with a comment like that if it was signed by a logged-on editor? Probably not, so there. :-) Implying that any semi-protection can be "easily gotten around" so it doesn't matter isn't the point.  It does matter.  That's not the spirit of Wikipedia.  It's Wikipedia policy to encourage participation by supporting IP's as perfectly valid editors.  The lock needs to end for the reasons I gave initially above, yes.  But now, I'm getting a whiff that the lock is also about discriminating against an underclass (an underclass that shouldn't be mistreated so as a matter of policy).  That's another reason to end the lock.

So, let's all just pretend it was a logged-on editor who made the "end the lock" arguments above. Then, we can all address the points on merit instead of clouding the issue by judging the source.

108.7.0.7 (talk) 04:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I made an account and logged in (I'm AKA 108.7.07). I reassert the points I made above about the need to stop the lock. Do they seem more valid now? :-) JenniferBerg (talk) 04:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Jennifer, your points do not seem more valid, but now that you are a registered editor they will be less important to you. Once you have been autoconfirmed then block will not apply to you, it is "semi-protected", not fully protected.  It is a sad fact that some articles attract more than their fair share of vandalism, and that virtually all vandalism comes from unregistered users, often at educational institutions on a shared IP.  In mentioning the spirit of Wikipedia due weight must also be given to the WP:RF policy, Wikipedian is here for the readers first, and for editors second.  Persistant vandalism directly attacks the ordinary reader and the integrity of Wikipedia.  Anyhow enough disagreement, you are on the side of the angels now, welcome. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)