Misplaced Pages

Al Qaeda

I would like to wikify some things. It's been protected for like 8 days now. I would like it unprotected. Perhaps someone could interest me in a concise account of why it's been frozen, but I suspect unfreezing it is best for everyone. thankz, Kzzl 07:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• The reasons for the page protection are on the talk page - i.e. squabbling over whether there is or isn't an NPOV dispute, rather than trying to sort out the parts that some think to be POV. It doesn't appear that there has been any agreement on rewordign to avoid POV issues, so I don't hold out hope if it is unprotected. If you think I've overlooked something on the talk page, please point me to it and I will reconsider. Thryduulf 10:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Robyn Carlsson

Links removed. I added great links to this site, with lots of info and stuff on Robyn. Those links has been removed several times. The link I added was to *Robyn Fanzone. There's two other links added on Robyn Carlsson from another Robyn-site owner and I'm quiet sure that it's him who remove my links all the time, since his own links remain. I think both of our links should be there, what do you think?

• It appears as though he might have given up - in which case protection isn't needed - but if he continues I will protect. I can see no reason not to have both links. Thryduulf 13:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Aquaman

Minor edit war, DrachenFrye and myself have been fighting reverts by Boycottthecalf. - Jack Cain

Minor edit war. Both myself and Jack Cain have been trying to stop Boycottthecaf from placing ridiculous and asinine comments about Aquaman in the article. - DrachenFyre 04:32, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

• This is a problem caused by just one user, who has been warned about the 3RR, so the best way to deal with the issue is to deal with hte user, not protect the page. I am keeping an eye on the page and will block for any 3RR violations and/or vandalism I see. Thryduulf 13:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Monarchy in Canada

Edit war . Homeontherange 22:11, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I protected the page. I would suggest another attempt at a request for mediation as well. --Woohookitty 01:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Terrorism (unprotection please)

Page was protected yesterday after repeated anonymous vandalism. – Smyth\ 21:40, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Laascaanood, Sool, Puntland, Somaliland, Somalia

This series of Somalia-related articles has been repeatedly vandalised over the last few days. Other Somalia-related articles have also been hit, but these ones seem to be attracting the most attention. Perhaps short-term protection might deter the vandals? --Alan Au 11:31, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Let's wait a bit. My latest round of reverts (for the first four, at least) from 22 Jul. are all presently still up. El_C 11:38, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Ken Mehlman

Unfortunately, problem is not over and the integrity of the article is being compromised. User Radicalsubversiv continues to revert in an effort to include unfounded, trashy internet gossip and innuendo regarding the subject's sexuality into the article. Request protection. Brian Brockmeyer 05:35, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Protected, the problem hasn't gone away as I hoped it would. Thryduulf 13:48, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Vanderbilt University

Constant edits/vandalism from anoymous user that consist of placing raw data dumps from the Vanderbilt website (which also is a copyright violation, I believe). Ttownfeen 21:47, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Protected. SlimVirgin 23:36, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Islam

Anonymous proxies and single-issue accounts bent on adding links to a site of little value. Please protect until a new consensus is reached or they find something better to do. —Charles P. (Mirv) 21:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Protected. SlimVirgin 23:32, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale

Constant revert wars. Linked to the battles raging on Khalistan. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Please protect Bhindranwale article to the version of "thetruth" edits on articles ...Khalistan has been protected to Sukh/vivin version, which can not be edited. Any more changes in favor of pro-indian govt (sukh / vivin( bias would make these articles biased towards the favor of Indian govt line.

Regards. --209.86.122.188 21:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I protected this on the version it was on when I looked at it. SlimVirgin 23:36, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Operation Blue Star

Constant revert wars. Linked to the battles raging on Khalistan. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Please protect operation blue star article to the version of "thetruth" ...Khalistan has been protected to Sukh/vivin version, which can not be edited. Any more changes in favor of pro-indian govt (who sukh / vivin support) bias would make these articles biased towards the favor of Indian govt line. And bring wikipedia fairness and even handed approach into dispute.

Regards. --209.86.122.188 21:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

The page has been protected by user:Slimvirgin. It is impropper to revert to a specific version of a page when protecting it - see Misplaced Pages:Protection policy and m:The Wrong Version. Thryduulf 23:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Khalistan

Repeated reverts and edits from anonymous IPs. Vivin and I are trying to resolve this with Thetruth, but it's like talking to a brick wall. I can't say for certain that the anonymous IPs are Thetruth, but it is consistent with previous actions. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• protected. What a filthy mouth that anon has. Thryduulf 18:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

IGN

A number of anonymous IP addresses have been vandalizing it over the last few hours. -- JamesTeterenko 05:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

it looks as though only 1 IP address was responsible for the vandalism and this has been blocked, which is a better way to deal with this than page protection. Thryduulf 15:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

In the end, it was one that really fought it until he was blocked. However, all of the following IPs vandalized the page last night: User:68.104.100.121, User:68.7.98.110, User:66.176.254.69, User:70.248.182.77, User:69.111.15.77, User:24.70.129.35, User:68.6.226.241, User:68.7.158.235. It appears to be fine now, but it was more than one IP. -- JamesTeterenko 22:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Ken Mehlman

User Radicalsubversiv continues to violate three-revert rule in an effort to force baseless innuendo into the article about Mr. Mehlman's sexual preference. --Brian Brockmeyer 01:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

If the 3RR is being violated then report it there and he will be blocked. There have been no edits to the article today so the problem appears over, if I am wrong please request protection agian. Thryduulf 15:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Neither I nor anyone has violated the three-revert rule. Page protection is totally unnecessary -- the only issue here is Brian repeatedly removing information he doesn't like with only the flimsiest of explanations. RadicalSubversiv E 00:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Massacre at Hue

There is presently an edit war ensuing on this article. Myself, and at least 2 other editors have taken to reverting the article to preferred versions -- sometimes on a minute to minute basis. The 3RR has also been violated several times (by myself as well, I'm embarrassed to say). I'm requesting an Admin step in and temporarily protect the page in the hopes the other editors will be steered to the Discussion page for productive discourse. Simply requesting discussion hasn't worked thus far. 209.86.1.9 00:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

As discussion has died down, and main beef appears to have been resolved, I request that this be unprotected. If more problems occur, I will put in for an RfC. TDC 15:27, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

"Main beef" has been resolved? After reviewing the Talk page, I see no such resolution. I also see more than one point of contention being discussed, without agreement. I predict edit wars will resume if the editors can't even form concensus on the Talk page. 209.86.1.200 16:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Of course you predict edit wars, as you have proven yourself more than willing to Rv an article over a dozen times a day if the new version does not suit your tastes.TDC 17:33, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

And this statement comes from "TDC"?? What a hoot.  :) 209.86.1.200 19:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• protected. Thryduulf 16:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Please unprotect, anon user has no intent on "discussion", just force feeding his version of the article. TDC 15:10, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Unprotecting would result in continued revert wars and/or vandalism, as User TDC appears intent on maintaining a POV article. 209.86.1.123 16:48, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

personal attacks and irrelevant discussion removed. I quote from the top of the page: "This is not the place to discuss or dispute articles, users, or policies.

For the record, admins do not have access to the IP addresses used by logged in users. This facility is available only to developers and those who have been given permission to use teh m:check user utility - I believe this latter is only user:Tim Starling and user:David Gerard on the English wikipedia. Thryduulf 16:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Missing sun motif

Article subject to ridiculous edit war over whether it should be spelt/mention "myth" or "motif", and whether it should be "Sun" or "sun". ~~~~ 18:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

No edits since 21 July, and discussion appears to be happening at talk so I don't see a need to protect at the moment. Thryduulf 16:38, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Terrorism

An NPOV dispute exists for Terrorism. Attempts by various members, including myself, to place {POV} marker at the top are immediately reverted by one of two editors. Attempts to update the current definition are also immediately reverted by these same two members. There are four pages of archives with dozens of people proposing the time-honored, objective definition of this term, but two people keep the new rhetorical and confusing definition instead as the sole definition. They even refuse to allow an NPOV dispute tag above their subjective definition. Although I hate to lock any article, I'm afraid that is the only way a {POV} tag is going to stay on the top of this one. Please place a {POV} tag on the definition of Terrorism and lock the page so that we can work this out and find objective definitions to the word. Thank you. --Zephram Stark 19:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Zephram (and a sockuppet) appears to be the only editor requesting protection. All other editors on the page have rejected Zephram's POV and argument. As for the unnamed "dozens of people" Zephram mentions, none of them are part of the current dispute, nor have they commented on the current article. Jayjg 19:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• I have no sock-puppets, Jayjg, as I'm sure someone with access to the IPs can confirm. There are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of people in the Terrorism archives who have been calling for an objective definition of terrorism. The introductions to Misplaced Pages articles are for objective definitions. The confusing rhetoric in the introduction of the Terrorism can serve no useful purpose except for propaganda, but I suppose you already know that. I think this issue can be solved by creating two definitions: the time-honored definition and the War_on_terror definition. I urge you to work with us to find an article that works for everyone. Until we can find a compromise that allows for an objective definition along with your propaganda, there is definitely an NPOV dispute.

• When different points of view need to be expressed, in an encyclopedia definition, these points of view are presented as POV, and not as fact. Objectivity is maintained by first presenting the parts that both sides of the dispute agree upon in a dispassionate way, followed by arguments for both sides of the issue presented as POV from biased sources. Currently, the terrorism introduction only includes the POV, and it is stated as fact. There is no mention of the definition Webster uses—-the description of terrorism we have used for over two hundred years.

• The current introduction is subjective. We want an objective definition (or set of definitions). You can confuse the issue all you want, but those truths remain and one more: the neutrality of the current article is in dispute. --Zephram Stark 20:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the POV sticker, suggesting that others use specific {npov-section} stickers instead --be specific. Zephram, while I respect your interest in balance, keep in mind that the article has been in flux for years, and has been at times than it is now. So, while the goal is objective definition, and some may not be sympathetic to this ideal, a simple solicitation for comment from past editors is often sufficient to override minority bias. -SV|t 23:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your desire to keep Misplaced Pages clean of NPOV tags, and that is why I am actively trying to find a solution that we can all agree upon. We have succeeded in doing this in the past, and in removing the NPOV tag, when that is the only way to remove it. In terrorism, however, because there is no NPOV tag, there is no motivation to do anything except confuse the issue, revert edits, remove tags, and bad-mouth each other.

I point to the definition of Al-Qaeda as a prime example. This page has been locked with an NPOV tag on it. As a result, people from all points of view are coming together to find a solution to our differences. We will find a definition that works for everyone, and this is the only way we have found to do it.

There is a reason terrorism has been in flux for years. It has never had protection for the purpose of NPOV dispute resolution. I have listed 14 specific NPOV disputes that either I, or others, originally brought up. I hope you will choose to lock the page with an NPOV tag so that we can finally resolve these issues. --Zephram Stark 00:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Zephram Stark. The article is clearly POV and is rather offensive.-- Petpetpal7 00:20, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

This was the above user's first ever edit. Thirty minutes later, he was blocked permanently for vandalism. – Smyth\ 21:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• Geni has protected this article. Thryduulf 16:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • (Protection was not related to this issue, but was in response to a vandal.) – Smyth\ 21:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith

I think another consensus has been reached on Star Wars III. See Talk:Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith#Credits for details. I think since all issues have been settled, the page can be unprotected again. Thanks! Sasquatch′↔T↔C 22:38, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Note: Moved from WP:AN and page was unprotected by Thryduulf. Sorry for any inconvenience cause, I forgot about this page. Regards. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 00:49, July 24, 2005 (UTC)