This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.
If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio articles
The quality of articles is something very important to Wikipedia. Its open nature is very important too. The encyclopedia that anyone can edit. That is the idea, and as much as possible it is true. However direct invitations for vandalism are not what Wikipedia is about. If you really get a kick out of editing you can play around in the Sand Box. Sgd23:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT by Currywurry: I don't think you get it, do you? Kelner doesn't care for accuracy, he wants people to vandalise his page. Don't feed me that tired rhetoric about wikipedia being accurate and then giving me a link to the sandbox.
Currywurry: Kelner does not own this resource. He does not make the rules about what appear on his page. That is the beginning and the end of it. Wikipedia was found, by independent review, to be about as accurate as the Encyclopedia Brittanica. That is all due to the very dedicated people who contribute to this site. Wikipedia is a noble concept and it would be in the poorest taste to desecrate their hard work with your juvenile games.--bitewOrms23:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wormboy: Yes, but when a page is about a person, don't they have the right to decide what is on that page? Just that most people don't want slander on their page, while Kelner does. Protection could at least be removed until the end of his show, so people can have their vandal fest and then be done with it, and the article can be reverted afterwards, but during the vandal-fest have the rule of keeping the original stuff. And judging by some of the vandalism, i doubt anyone would mistake it for the real thing.
"Don't they have the right to decide what is on that page?" Not more than anyone else on wikipedia. It is not his page and it is obviously important that it is not just his views expressed. So should he have the right to decide? No. The community should decide, and it has. The page has been protected. Sgd00:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So your saying that if he didn't give permission to vandalise the page and people made slanderous accusations involving him and aubergines that he wouldn't be able to do anything about it? Stupid logic i believe. Currywurry00:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course he would. He would have the opportunity to revert it to a non-vandalized status and request protection. That is exactly what we have done in this case. --bitewOrms00:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But he wants it to be vandalised. What if he said he wanted it to talk about something completely stupid that was about him? Since it's about him in some way, he'd have a right to enforce it to be there. Either that, or force Wikipedia to delete the entry for not being about him and what he wants it to be.
No, he doesn't have the right to make it say whatever he wants it to say, only to have inaccuracies or untruths corrected or deleted.
It was a joke - one of his worse ones. For people using the resource the wikipedia should be as accurate as we can make it, let's move on.
UNPROTECT THIS PAGE! KELNER WANTS IT VANDALISED! HE HAS NO DIGNITY LEFT AND DOESN'T CARE IF YOU SAYS HE'S BODGER OR BADGER, OR HAD SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH AN AUBERGINE!
UNPROTECT THIS PAGE SO HIS SHOW ACTUALLY HAS SOMETHING FUNNY TO TALK ABOUT!
Caps lock makes me look cool.
EDIT: Kelner just said it's a shame his page here has been protected. He was obviously looking forward to more mayhem. Come on, some senior member/administrator/mod have a heart and remove protection!
EDIT EDIT: Kelner, if you read this, check out the request for unprotection page. I've made a plea on your behalf.
...the guy who this page is about is telling people on live radio to vandalise it! He doesn't care for accuracy!
It is not his page! This is a wikipedia page about him. He may not care for accuracy and quality, but wikipedia does. Sgd23:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT by Currywurry: Have a sense of humour, and forget the bloody rules for once. Once his show packs up at 1AM (in over an hour) the vandalism will gradually stop until tomorrow, when it will start again and then stop for a week.
I am sorry but you will have to find a user with the power to unprotect articles who agrees with you. I believe you have to be a member for four days. By then I think the buzz will be gone. Sgd23:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think it is OK to vandalise Wikipedia? Would you also direct listeners to deface library books? Or spray graffiti on the KC stadium? This is not a very good example for a BBC radio presenter to set!
Or perhaps we could have a competition to deface your website, martinkelner.com
The page is now unprotected. I feel that the buzz from last night has dies down and that it is important to allow what might be real contributions to the article. Be aware that vandalism will very quickly result in Semi Protection being implemented again. Sgd12:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there has been a significant amount of vandalism since then, and it is nearly 3 months later. Is it time for Semi-protection to be "very quickly" implemented again? JamesBWatson (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever David, you're just jealous because Mr. Kelner is a Radio Superstar!! Get over it, you are never gonna have the fame, the cars, the money, the women and the respect this man has.... LET IT LIE and GET ON WITH YOUR LIFE!! We can't all be world famous!! 205.188.116.13514:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And you're evidently a cringeworthy AOL fanboy who chuckles away at the jolly japes of has-been pompous broadcasters on local FM.... 00:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
