Category talk:Wikipedia pages protected against vandalism

Odd Protection.[edit]

It is also worth noticing that a very small page on morgellons is fully protected, stopping the argument that it is not a imagined disease by not allowing the submission of scientific papers against their statement. Very odd. Donnellydr (talk) 09:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How many articles are being removed from the editing Commons without explanation or recourse?[edit]

I noticed that Jeremy Remmer's page does not include his role as producer and lead actor in a movie about Gary Webb, the reporter that documented the CIA'S role in enabling the Contras to introduce cocaine to South Central L.A. with impunity.

1. I tried to edit, and came across the "protected" status, which oddly, directed me nowhere, to no explanation as to what that entailed or what the criteria for shutting a Wikipedia article down and preventing further editing, might be.... much less how to open up the page to make key edits.

2. Now I see only 5 entries listed in the category of a "protected" page, and Remmer not on that list. How can the public know how many articles have been effectively removed from the editing Commons and relegated to the sole domain of who knows which administrators (appointed by who knows what process?). If more than 5 articles have been removed from public editing, which ones have, and why?

3. I have no particular stake in this matter, but why was Remmer's article sealed off? Doesn't seem like a very controversial figure likely to attract "vandalism" (whatever the definition of vandalism is in the opinion of the admin that removed the page from the editing Commons without explanation or recourse....

4. The more I think about this, the more alarming... Is this the end of Wikipedia? As someone who used to edit some of the more controversial pages for several years, over thousands of hours, this is very concerning. Somehow those pages produced reasonably ok articles, and I can't imagine why this page should need "protection", when much more controversial ones don't.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B408:1700:A1E1:B4BE:68E2:E16E (talk) 07:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]