Misplaced Pages

:Requests for page protection: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:13, 27 July 2005 view sourceHuaiwei (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users44,504 edits →[] and []← Previous edit Revision as of 15:46, 27 July 2005 view source Instantnood (talk | contribs)32,683 edits →List of companies in the PRC and List of airports in the PRCNext edit →
Line 29: Line 29:
*****The edit history shows that Instantnood sparked this latest dispute with this edit: . The page was first changed to a reference of the PRC with SchmuckyTheCat's edit , with no signs of edit warring at all after that. Instead, various editors, including instantnood himself, have added content to it. In light of the page's reference to the PRC, I changed the format of the page to show airports in all of the PRC, a process I started 2 days after SchmuckyTheCat's edit, and which I did not finish until a good '''50 days''' later , with no signs of any edits opposing my move throughout the entire period. An '''entire 2 months''' passed before I made a small edit to a single entry , and 4 fateful days later, Instantnood decides he has nothing else in his hands to play with, and decided to spark a major edir war through the edit specified above. *****The edit history shows that Instantnood sparked this latest dispute with this edit: . The page was first changed to a reference of the PRC with SchmuckyTheCat's edit , with no signs of edit warring at all after that. Instead, various editors, including instantnood himself, have added content to it. In light of the page's reference to the PRC, I changed the format of the page to show airports in all of the PRC, a process I started 2 days after SchmuckyTheCat's edit, and which I did not finish until a good '''50 days''' later , with no signs of any edits opposing my move throughout the entire period. An '''entire 2 months''' passed before I made a small edit to a single entry , and 4 fateful days later, Instantnood decides he has nothing else in his hands to play with, and decided to spark a major edir war through the edit specified above.
*****As anyone can clearly see, the evidence is all in the edit histories. There has never been any "edit disputes" in both pages until the two controversial edits by Instantnood in each page, both of which sparked frenzied multiple edits by multiple users on a daily basis not seen in both pages before. If he sees a need to revert the page to "prior the dispute has taken place", then may I know why he did not revert it to the version just before his edit in both instances? I would think he has alot to answer for his actions above.--] 15:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC) *****As anyone can clearly see, the evidence is all in the edit histories. There has never been any "edit disputes" in both pages until the two controversial edits by Instantnood in each page, both of which sparked frenzied multiple edits by multiple users on a daily basis not seen in both pages before. If he sees a need to revert the page to "prior the dispute has taken place", then may I know why he did not revert it to the version just before his edit in both instances? I would think he has alot to answer for his actions above.--] 15:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
******Here is not the right place to further the debate, but as ] has brought up some of his arguments which are not entirely true, I have to clarify. I do apologise for any inconvenience that this might have caused.<br>Huaiwei sees the disputes over the two lists as something I brought up recently. This is quite the opposite. If one take a look at the edit history, she/he will be able to tell there were disputes months ago. In the past two months or so, I was advised by my advocates not to engage in editing relating to the naming conventions while the previous ArbCom case was in progress. Therefore I did not actively object renaming of titles by SchmuckyTheCat, and edits by Huaiwei. <br>I added the notice to the ] because I did not consider it part of the disputed issue, as similar notices are already tagged at the top of many other mainland China-related articles. It was simply for clarification purposes. Nevertheless Huaiwei went further to change the coverage of the list , that touched the firepoint of the disputed issue. As the ] shares the similar conflicts, I supposed the two lists should be considered together, and therefore made similar changes to both lists, and later, tagged with the {{tl|twoversions}} template.<br>Back to the requests for protection, I'd like to request administrators to consider adding the notice I suggested, in order to better clarify to readers what is disputed. &mdash; ]] 15:46, July 27, 2005 (UTC)


===]=== ===]===

Revision as of 15:46, 27 July 2005

Shortcut
  • ]

This page is for requesting that a page or image be protected or unprotected.

If you would like to request a page be protected or unprotected, please list it (and the date) at the top of the current requests section below, with the reason that it needs protecting or unprotecting. Before you do so, however, consult Misplaced Pages:Protection policy for details on the purpose of protecting pages and the guidelines concerning page protection.

Only consider protection as an option that is necessary in order to resolve your problem and that the only solution that will assist in the solution of the problem is protection. Sometimes the problem will go away after a week or so.

After a page has been protected, it is listed on Misplaced Pages:Protected page with a short description indicating why it was protected. Further discussion should take place on the Talk page of the article. This is not the place to discuss or dispute articles, users, or policies.

When submitting a request for page unprotection, you may want to consider the reason given for protection at Misplaced Pages:Protected page (or lack thereof).

Administrators: When you have fulfiled or rejected a request, please note your actions (or reasons for not acting) and move the request to the old requests section at the bottom of the page.


Current requests

Please place new requests at the top.

List of companies in the PRC and List of airports in the PRC

These two lists have been disputed and debated over their coverage, which are related to the usage of the terminology "mainland China" and the application of Misplaced Pages naming conventions on Chinese-related topics. While the issue is not yet settled, both lists have been edited and reverted for many times. I have applied the {{twoversions}} tag, attempted to put the edit warring into a temporary truce. Huaiwei (talk · contribs) and SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs) are not satisfied with the version chosen, and have misunderstood the meaning of the twoversions template, which should not be seen as an endorsement of any of the two versions. In order to stop the edit warring and to apply the twoversions tag successfully, I would like to request the two lists be protected with the tag applied. — Instantnood 18:15, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

  • Protected the versions with the twoversions templates. Thryduulf 10:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I would like to point out that the version with the two versions template is the version instantnood prefers, ie, the version which existed before the two pages were moved to a new title. This has been corrected quite some time ago, until Instantnood suddenly comes in and starts to revert them unilaterally and without warning. This resulted in the latest revert war, and instantnood took the opportunity to revert them all the way back to the version he prefered based on the old titles, plus adding a two version tag, an action which obviously endorses a version he prefers. I would therefore question the rational of protecting the two pages at their current versions.--Huaiwei 12:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
      • I did not choose a version arbitrarily or according to my preference, but rather, as explained in the edit summaries, I restored to the version before disputes take place, i.e. what was the article intended for when it was created, and what it was like immediately before the disputes. By saying "this has been corrected" User:Huaiwei is asserting her/his point of view, and attempting to implement her/his point of view while the discussions are in progress. As for the title I would suggest administrators to add a notice informing readers that there is a dispute over the title of the article, in the following suggested format, for instance: There is currently a dispute over the title of this article, between list of something of mainland China and list of something of the People's Republic of China. The current title does not endorse, and should not be seen as an endorsement of, any of the two. — Instantnood 13:08, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
        • This conveniently ignores anyone else's changes to the articles besides one user, Instantnood. This is a request from a POV pusher to protect his version from the edits of at least three other people, and at least six have made smaller edits that are lost by this protection - because he makes no attempts to include subsequent change in his revert warring. Every other time Instantnood has come to this page the admins have seen through the fact that he is the one without consensus. This is a worthless protection and absolutely nothing will come from the discussion on the talk page because he - and only he - filibusters. SchmuckyTheCat 13:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
          • Indeed. when the dispute was sparked by Instantnood, several other editors have also contributed, and did come to a logical compromise in List of companies in the People's Republic of China. This is evident in the edit history and the talk page. Instantnood, however, decides to unilaterally revert all these edits back to an ancient version for no apparant reason other then to claim it was the point "before the dispute". Lets look at the history pages of each to prod this further:
          • List of companies in the People's Republic of China
          • A quick look at the edit history shows that the daily dispute was sparked when Instantnood made this edit . Prior to this, there was no obvious signs of any dispute by the said parties. SchmuckyTheCat first changed the reference of Mainland China to the PRC here , with no one else opposing it in terms of edits. Instantnood himself made just one edit which did not change the leading sentence, almost 2 months after SchmuckyTheCat's edit. I made my first edit in the page, a small edit , 14 days after instantnood. It was another 20 days later before Instantnood sparked the edit warring with the edit mentioned above. At no other time was there any evidence of edit warring at all.
          • List of airports in the People's Republic of China
          • The edit history shows that Instantnood sparked this latest dispute with this edit: . The page was first changed to a reference of the PRC with SchmuckyTheCat's edit , with no signs of edit warring at all after that. Instead, various editors, including instantnood himself, have added content to it. In light of the page's reference to the PRC, I changed the format of the page to show airports in all of the PRC, a process I started 2 days after SchmuckyTheCat's edit, and which I did not finish until a good 50 days later , with no signs of any edits opposing my move throughout the entire period. An entire 2 months passed before I made a small edit to a single entry , and 4 fateful days later, Instantnood decides he has nothing else in his hands to play with, and decided to spark a major edir war through the edit specified above.
          • As anyone can clearly see, the evidence is all in the edit histories. There has never been any "edit disputes" in both pages until the two controversial edits by Instantnood in each page, both of which sparked frenzied multiple edits by multiple users on a daily basis not seen in both pages before. If he sees a need to revert the page to "prior the dispute has taken place", then may I know why he did not revert it to the version just before his edit in both instances? I would think he has alot to answer for his actions above.--Huaiwei 15:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
            • Here is not the right place to further the debate, but as User:Huaiwei has brought up some of his arguments which are not entirely true, I have to clarify. I do apologise for any inconvenience that this might have caused.
              Huaiwei sees the disputes over the two lists as something I brought up recently. This is quite the opposite. If one take a look at the edit history, she/he will be able to tell there were disputes months ago. In the past two months or so, I was advised by my advocates not to engage in editing relating to the naming conventions while the previous ArbCom case was in progress. Therefore I did not actively object renaming of titles by SchmuckyTheCat, and edits by Huaiwei.
              I added the notice to the list of companies because I did not consider it part of the disputed issue, as similar notices are already tagged at the top of many other mainland China-related articles. It was simply for clarification purposes. Nevertheless Huaiwei went further to change the coverage of the list , that touched the firepoint of the disputed issue. As the list of airports shares the similar conflicts, I supposed the two lists should be considered together, and therefore made similar changes to both lists, and later, tagged with the {{twoversions}} template.
              Back to the requests for protection, I'd like to request administrators to consider adding the notice I suggested, in order to better clarify to readers what is disputed. — Instantnood 15:46, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing

Kids at the popular forum of gamefaqs.com formed a sarcastic religion (rigism devoted to this game. Thread link Vandalizing that article is a spiritual act. Please protect until these kids become bored with their religion. lots of issues | leave me a message 17:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Abortion

The page was protected after my request during extended conflict with user: 214.13.4.151. After discussion and requests for mediation, we were approaching a compromise. user:214.13.4.151 has since stopped discussing on the article talk page and has ignored requests for mediation. As that edit war seems to have stopped, we should be ready to start editing again.--Tznkai 16:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

unprotected by Kelly Martin as of 22:59, July 26, 2005 Jtkiefer ----- 07:58, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

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)

Charles Taze Russell

There is a problem with an 'edit war' on this page. The group most closely associated with Charles Taze Russell's Last Will & Testament, and documented legacy, have had factual data removed from the article in favor of groups who have no association with him. A permanent protection is requested to maintain the integrity of the Misplaced Pages entry, and to prevent accurate material being removed, and innacurate material being added, etc... Thank you. PastorRussell 18:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that this article does need protection now, but having looked more into the history of the article, its talk and having read the RfC (which I will shortly be endorsing) I am no longer neutral. As such it would be inapropriate for me to protect the page on any version. Please could another admin do this. Thryduulf 20:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


Old requests

  • Only old requests that have been actioned or rejected should be in this section.
  • If you want to disagree with an administrators decision to protect or not protect you can comment here.
  • Other discussion should take place on the talk page of the article concerned or on user talk pages.
  • Requests that are in this section and have had no new comment in the last 3 days may be removed by any editor. Requests may be removed earlier at any administrator's discretion.

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)

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)
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)
This from the individual who reverted over 40 times in 48 hours?
No, that would be User:J Michaels, an individual that has been curiously silent as of late. Perhaps the puppet strings broke.
Here is the thing, sockpuppets work well when a user uses an AOL type proxy IP server. I do not use one and it is a simple matter to verify what posts can be attributed to me. If your bullshit charges that User:J Michaels was indeed a sockpupet of mine, then an admin could look into it and take appropriate disciplinary measures.
Just an FYI, it is impossible for an Admin to determine what posts are yours. Just as it is impossible for an Admin to tell that posts I make from home, and from work, and from the library are all from me, unless I log in to the same user account prior to each posting. 209.86.1.200 16:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Actually, its not that difficult at all. An admin has access to the IP address of every registered user and since all my edits come from two IP's (work and home) in the Chicago land area, it would be easy to rule out that User:J Michaels is not me. The same applies to you as well. An admin can look at all the anon IP's who have contributed to this article and determine that since they all come from the same bay area Earthlink proxy server, they are all you. Simple enough for even you to understand, see. TDC 17:33, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Forgive my ignorance of this computerese, but how, exactly, can an Admin determine that "all your edits come from two IPs (work and home)?" That is a powerful tool indeed! (*cough* bullshit *cough*) Even as I type this, I can look across the banks of terminals here and see at least one other person that has edited that article, several times. I also see at least a couple other "anon IPs" in the recent edit history of that article that aren't mine or hers -- and aren't even Earthlink proxies. You might want to carefully review your facts, reasoning and conclusions (hear that a lot, do you?). (As an aside ... Chicago, eh? I was a Rush Street rat as a kid, but I doubt the area is anywhere near as wild as it was back then.) 209.86.1.200 19:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Your ignorance is duly noted. Every time a registered user makes an entry, the IP address they made it from is recorded. ARIN keeps very good records on where these IP's are located. As for the other "anon IP's", let us investigate where just a handful of them have come from:
Yes, let's.
  • 209.86.1.200 acn16b.ca-oakland1.ne.earthlink.net
    209.86.0.73 cor01-p5-0.ca-oakland1.ne.earthlink.net
    213.54.216.96 so-1-0-0.core0.b.tiscali.de
    209.86.2.115 cor01-p5-0.ca-oakland1.ne.earthlink.net
    165.247.208.72 acn17a.ca-oakland1.ne.earthlink.net
    209.86.1.9 acn16a.ca-oakland1.ne.earthlink.net
    213.54.200.232 p213.54.200.232.tisdip.tiscali.de
    165.247.214.231 cor01-p5-0.ca-oakland1.ne.earthlink.net
    213.54.208.106 p213.54.208.106.tisdip.tiscali.de
Notice any similarities? Lie all you like, it will only lead to a IP range block. Unfortunate for any other users who might be using your hub, but good for Misplaced Pages. TDC 20:26, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
"An admin can look at all the anon IP's who have contributed to this article and determine that ... they are all you." -TDC I count three Anon contributers just in the last week, and more further back. Lie all you like, TDC. I'm late for my flight to Denmark. 165.247.212.52 06:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
But, lets look at the number of reverts you have made in a 24 hour period, shall we?
*1st
*2nd
*3rd
*4th
*5th
*6th
*7th
*8th
*9th
*10th
*11th
*12th
*13th
*14th
*15th
Thats gotta be some kind of record. TDC 21:12, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
Your record is safe. Undisputed King of Reverts
Once again, I laugh because you have absolutely no evidence to back this claim. TDC 17:33, July 26, 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)

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)