Category talk:Semi-protected

This is becoming a huge category; much bigger than it was before. The sorts of things that are usually in it seem to be the sorts of things that immature individuals would vandalise... it's quite predictable, really.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 08:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

And who's to say that it won't just get bigger and bigger? Jimbo Wales said, to paraphrase, that the slogan "you can edit this page right now" is to be held sacred on Wikipedia; why then is it being contradicted by this category? I can only see more and more additions to the category with time and less unprotection requested. I believe in Wikipedia:Editors should be logged in users.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

What is it with this creeping semi-protection? It doesn't seem to be just about vandalism. There are hundreds if not thousands of articles in this category now, many of them not obvious vandalism targets and with no other good reasons for semi-protection evident in the talk pages or history. The use of the microscopic little silver lock symbol (that you won't see unless you know where to look) instead of the proper semi-protection banner has unfortunately allowed dozens upon dozens of pages to be semi-protected "on the sly" by presumably well-meaning admins.

I don't believe in Wikipedia:Editors should be logged in users, but if you're going to move in that direction, it should at least be by consensus rather than by stealth. 217.34.39.123 15:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

What's going on here? There are way too many articles in this category. This spits upon the principles of Wikipedia. Each day, we are getting further from the basic founding idea that this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. I can understand the need to protect articles in rare circumstances and for short periods of time (24 hours). I see no reason to protect so many articles for so long. There is a reason why we can revert edits. There is no need to discourage new contributers by disallowing editing on so many articles. --Nricardo 06:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

So many of them, indeed, are not obvious vandalism targets. Lineman (occupation) is a vandal target requiring semi-protection? That's just bizarre. Some of them are definitely understandable, but still.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, some of them, such as black smoker, are protected for much longer than necessary. If you check the history it was being vandalised on just one day. Yet it can be unprotected once that banned vandal goes away, surely - it's still got semi-protection which is unneccessary.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Not able to edit

I am a legitimite registred user but I can't edit those pages.--Dummmmmmy 00:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You need to be registered for 4 days before you can. Anyway pages that are semi-protected (IMAO) are not where newbies should be starting their editing. --Ben^chat 05:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I was able to edit semi-protected page before. Now I cannot edit semi-protected page. I discovered maybe Wikipedia policy had been changed. Anyone who want to edit semi-protected page have to be registered for 4 days PLUS have made least 10 edits. I made only 8 edits. Danielcg (talk) 06:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia really needs to take a look at this policy, which goes against everything it stands for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bat13boy (talk • contribs) 00:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)