Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:57, 4 May 2006

Welcome—request protection of a page, file, or template here.

Shortcuts WP:RFPP WP:RFP WP:RPP Before requesting, read the protection policy. Full protection is used to stop edit warring between multiple users or to prevent vandalism to high-risk templates; semi-protection and pending changes are usually used to prevent IP and new user vandalism (see the rough guide to semi-protection); and move protection is used to stop pagemove revert wars. Extended confirmed protection is used where semi-protection has proved insufficient (see the rough guide to extended confirmed protection) After a page has been protected, it is listed in the page history and logs with a short rationale, and the article is listed on Special:Protectedpages. In the case of full protection due to edit warring, admins should not revert to specific versions of the page, except to get rid of obvious vandalism. Skip to table of contents requests to raise protection lower protection requested edits (purge) Request protection of a page, or increasing the protection level Request protection Request unprotection of a page, or reducing the protection level Request unprotection Request a specific edit to a protected page Please request an edit directly on the protected page's talk page before posting here Request edit

Archives

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Current requests for protection

Request either semi-protection, full protection, or move protection by placing it in bold text (add ''' before and after a word to make it bold) at the beginning of your statement.

Template:Policy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Template:Guideline (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There's some concern over whether or not CBDunkerson (talk · contribs) (see his talk page) was involved and whether or not he should have protected the pages. Could a neutral administrator please verify that there's a revert war (between myself and Slim Virgin (talk · contribs), to name the two major parties) and unprotect/reprotect the pages? Thank you. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

In case it's relevant, I have no intention of reverting Locke Cole again. SlimVirgin 01:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

See here for why it might be better if CBDunkerson were not the protecting admin. An article RfC on the template dispute was filed today and it's preferable for pages not to be protected during an RfC, if possible. SlimVirgin 01:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not following that logic. Any proposals can be made on the talk page and should be discussed since it's clear there's a dispute. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

For the sake of better resolving disputes, and for formality's sake, he should not have protected. However, for both, he did not protect "his version. Also, there was foolish edit warring going on too (its policy dog-gone-it! You should discuss first edit later anyway...). I support the page protection, for the record.Voice-of-All 01:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Mother Teresa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-Protection . Information reverted once again by user Nunh-huh. His explanation for revert was "we don't remove attributed opinions because we disagree with them". The user in question clearly understands that the "Controversy" section in the article Mother Teresa, is opinion. The following "opinions" are throughout the "Controversy" section: The personal views of Christopher Hitchens, described by Misplaced Pages authors as a "Contrarian" - One who takes a contrary view or action, especially an investor who makes decisions that contradict prevailing wisdom, as in buying securities that are unpopular at the time. Hardly a person to use as an encylopedic, credible reference. According to his Misplaced Pages article, he is known as "...for his iconoclasm, anti-clericalism, atheism, anti-fascism and anti-monarchism." Furthermore, this is not a figure to be used as an encylopedic source. As we all know, information is never truly erased on a Misplaced Pages article, it is more so, displaced temporarily. I removed the information after it was clear no authors were working to clean the overbearing rancor and bias in the article.

Throughout the entire 25 paragraphs in the controversial sections, there are only 3 sources available. However, there is an abundance of markers labeled "Citation Needed" throughout those 25 paragraphs. The information needs to be removed TEMPORARILY until a group of authors can sort through the controversial sections. Whoever listed the information did a very decrepit job of compiling the information, with no references, sources of any kind, but an obvious bias to enstate controversial themes throughout the entire article. Please respond to this post at the Talk page of the article "Mother Teresa". Thank you. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.201.72.224 (talk • contribs) (signed erroneously as AJ24 18:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism from a string of sockpuppets (Toojdwin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Toojbert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Username77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Username117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), NoMoBush (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) who all appear to want to reinstate the edits by the blocked user Tooj117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has earned an extended block for repeated vandalism. --66.90.217.231 23:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Done. --Golbez 23:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Newegg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

semi-protection I am requesting protection for this page due to a anonymous user reverting the page to include an attack on the company. The user has not participated in calls on the talk page for some form of verification or at least state personal experience. I attempted to place a warning on the users talk page to address the concerns, however their IP address seems to change frequently as they are on broadband in Oklahoma. I was reffered here by a user responding to my HELPME call on my talk page.

If something can be done to prevent anonymous users from changing the page that may be sufficient as they are editing it constantly without supporting their views or citing references. Thank You --Zer0faults 12:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-All 15:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Battle of the Lower Dnieper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I hereby request protection of this page. Indeed, it is attacked by some guy (AndriyK) who is about the only one to claim it is POV and all (see the gigantic discussion on the talk page, where 10 ppl try to persuade him that it's not POV). This individual already has an ArbCom entry that led to a month' worth ban, and looks like he's on the loose again.

I therefore ask this page to be protected, obviously without the ridiculous POV tag on it. Protection might be actually a bit strong, but it will at least allow some cooldown... -- Grafikm_fr 09:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Fully protected due to revert warring. Voice-of-All 15:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Left Party (Sweden) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

full protection There has been an ongoing revert war since November 2005, as two users (first Itake, and from April 2006 on, Constanz) have been entering different critical materials on the Left Party and Soman has kept removing whole sourced paragraphs, regardless of changes. diff --Constanz - Talk 06:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Fully protected due to revert warring. Voice-of-All 15:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

semi-protection anon IP vandal - probably same one that is attacking merecat's page. --Tbeatty 06:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

That's funny because the "vandal bombs" as you put them were changes in font size, there couldn't be a more trivial thing to disagree over, however you seem to assume that anyone who disagrees with you more than 2 edits in a row is a vandal and then start shouting it in all caps, also I don't recall you using Tbeatty on that page at all, but here you are, so, good for you--172.146.16.64 06:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:merecat (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

semi-protection anon IP candal keeps dropping vandal bombs. --Tbeatty 06:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-All 07:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Shadow the Hedgehog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Anonomous IP's keep adding useless information that really doesn't need to be there. It's their opinion, and it's not even close to fact. Even new users who are fans do it-we may need full protection.--69.145.122.209 01:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I should point out that we rewrote it. It took days and a huge collaboration by the few grammer friendly users there. It's being ruined. Not that the people who edit it are trying to do it badly... They just don't have a very firm grasp on the English language.--69.145.122.209 01:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. For now, be sure to use descriptive edit summaries and discuss edits on talk. Voice-of-All 23:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Edits like this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this are so common they are just about every other edit.

Edits like this, this and this may seem okay, but are really unbelievable to someone who knows the subject. Trust me, it's fancruft. There is no logic behind almost any of it, and it's complete speculation

Then you'll get the usual vandalism

Again, most of this is unintentional on their part. I think most of them find the page on Google and get really excited about being able to voice thier opinion. We (being the few gramatically able in this particular article) use edit summaries and the talk page as often as possible; most anon IPs just don't read it. --69.145.122.209 01:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Ed, Edd 'n' Eddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Full protection - Someone (unidentified) keeps reverting the page bios to what they claim are the official character bios at Cartoon Network. These bios are replete with misinformation and misspelling. After I reverted the page back a few times, the unidentified editor posted a threat at the beginning of the article after reverting it again. The user does not use the discussion page, so there is no dialog. We need a cool down period. This page is always very heavily vandalised and tampered with. Elaich 00:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. For now, be sure to use descriptive edit summaries and discuss edits on talk. Voice-of-All 15:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Michael Walker (headmaster) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Full protection - Article has been vandalised several times.Danbarnesdavies 00:00, 3 May 2006 (BST)

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. For now, be sure to use descriptive edit summaries and discuss edits on talk. Voice-of-All 23:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Zeus_Web_Server (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection - User:Boborak keeps marking this article for deletion - with no good reason. Every other prominent webserver has a wikipedia entry. He has taken personal umbridge at my disagreeing with him over his wrong terminology (see discussion page) and is now defacing the article by removing sections of it, and marking it for deletion. Please stop this user abusing the process and protect this article--Toph3r 21:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyone may nominate an article for AFD as long as it's done in good faith (i.e. they really think it should be deleted, not just to make a point about something). If you disagree, then argue your case on the AFD page. Don't remove AFD notices, it's considered vandalism. · Katefan0 /poll 12:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Current requests for unprotection

If you simply want to make spelling corrections or add information to a protected page that is not disputed, and you are not involved in any disputes there, consider simply adding {{Editprotected}} to the article's talk page, along with an explanation of what you want to add to the page.

The Da Vinci Code (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I should like to add a Zoomable version of The Last Supper. You can view it here: . Thank You

Sabbath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article was protected due to a temporary edit war between myself and another user about their removal of bibleverse templates. Since then a consensus about the changes has been developed on the Talk:Sabbath (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs) and the related Template talk:Bibleverse (edit | template | history | links | watch | logs) pages. Ansell 02:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Page already protected by Essjay. Voice-of-All 15:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

This request was for unprotection. Ansell 23:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I see. People rarely request here so soon after protection. In such cases you should contact the protecting admin.Voice-of-All 00:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

George W. Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am a new user, and all I want to do is write about the 2006 Press Corps Dinner that the President was at. Somebody was a Bush impersonator, and I want to wrie about that. That is all. Thank you and please can I edit this article? Thank you. Later!!! Chili14 02:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Either wait a few days until you aren't classified as a new user (and you'll be able to edit the page), or post what you want to add to the article on the talk page and ask someone to add it with {{editprotected}}. Request denied. --Syrthiss 17:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Dhimmi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm not sure how long it takes these POV debates to get resolved, and I don't know if wikipedia can stipulate the conditions under which editing can continue... but I would argue that the Dhimmi section can be edited if there's a new writing strategy.

The problem has been that there is no universal agreement as to what Dhimmi means. This problem is compounded with people ranging in attitudes from pro-Islam to anti-Islam to neutral, all trying to peg the single interpretation that they believe is the 'one true meaning'. There is also a subtle effort to compare dhimmi with modern standards for religious minorities, and muting comparison with the standards for religious minorities that preceded it.

I think the most positive step to resolving this would be to illustrate that dhimmi is a wavering concept, like Democracy. Just as interpretations of Democracy have changed throughout history, and vary from location to location, so has the implementation of policy towards Dhimmi. The Dhimmi page should be broken down in "Dhimmi in the Quran", "Religious Minorities Before Islam", "Dhimmi in the Ottoman Empire", "Dhimmi in Arabia", "Dhimmi in Non Muslim Countries", "Dhimmi in the 20th Century" and so on. That would allow contributors (and thus readers) to seperate the individual interpretations from the overall concept.

I'm afraid I don't personally know enough to verify the actual factual claims. Hence why my suggestion focuses on organizing the article in a way that reflects the fluidity of meaning.

If the article remains organized as it is now, more disputes over what is POV and what is fact will be inevitable. Hence, if we cannot ensure that the article is reorganized, it should remain protected.

No new topics have been brought up in the talk pages by the offended parties. I think protection should be removed to see if the parties can commence editing without becoming nasty. --Dr.Worm 14:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It's been protected for a month and no recent discussion. I've unprotected. · Katefan0 /poll 14:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Current requests for significant edits to a protected page

Please demonstrate a good reason for an edit to a protected page. These are only done in exceptional circumstances, or when there is very clear consensus for an edit and continued protection. Please link to the talk page where consensus was reached.

You may also add {{Editprotected}} to the article's talk page if you would like an inconsequential change of some kind made, but note that most of these should simply wait for unprotection.