Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:41, 29 March 2006

• ]

This page is for requesting that a page, image or template be fully protected, semi-protected or unprotected, including page-move protection.

If you would like to request a page be protected or unprotected, please list it (and sign the request) at the TOP of the current requests section below, with the reason that it needs protecting or unprotecting. Also, make sure you specify whether you want the page to be full protected or semi protected. Before you do so, however, consult Misplaced Pages:Protection policy for details on the purpose of protecting pages and the guidelines concerning page protection. Misplaced Pages:Semi-protection is the policy that covers semi-protection of heavily vandalised pages.

Only consider protection as an option when it is necessary in order to resolve your problem, and when the only solution that will assist in the solution of the problem is protection.

Generally, Full page protection is to stop edit warring or severe vandalism. Semi protection is only for vandalism. Full protection is also used on templates that are frequently used and not in need of frequent edits (this includes most editorial templates; see Misplaced Pages:High-risk templates).

After a page has been protected, it is listed on Misplaced Pages:List of protected pages with a short description indicating why it was protected. Further discussion should take place on the Talk page of the article. Admins do not revert back to previous versions of the page, except to get rid of vandalism.

{{Editprotected}} can be used to request edits to protected pages as an alternative to requests for page unprotection.

Here is the log page if users want to look up whether or not pages have been protected.

Category:Misplaced Pages protected edit requests lists current protection edit requests.

How to list page

Note: Always use ==== headings. Do not use ; or : or == or === or ===== or = or # or * or something else..

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.

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

Semi-protection requested. The article has been completely erased a number of times. Also, people tend to add many derrogatory comments on this page. It would be great if this could be done as to keep a great source of information from being convoluted. ALl the information describing his presidency was absent for a while until i reverted the page to many edits ago. dabomb1188 01:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Semiprotected. · Katefan0/poll 01:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

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

Semi-protection requested. Continual reversion by an individual devoting the huge majority of his version to his own work, who is removing a version that simply lists the alternative approaches. Neil 00:29, 29 March 2006 (BST)

I should have mentioned that the individual has posted from a number of dynamic IP addresses and also, most recently, under a handle with the same name as the article itself, i.e. 'Archaeogeodesy'. Neil 00:52, 29 March 2006 (BST)

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any OR material. Consider requesting a block. Voice-of-All 04:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Great Sphinx of Giza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Full protection for at least 72 hours because there is a need for a cooling off period to encourage everyone to work issues out on the discussion page.

I'm not requesting that anyone be disciplined (and, I hope that doesn't happen, i think it could easily be counter-productive in the long term) despite the fact that one or more people involved have had serious arbcom incidents. Instead, I really do think that the issues can be worked out if reverts are stopped for a few days and the major editors are 'encouraged' to talk instead and come up with something that makes everyone equally unhappy ;)

Please see the Talk:Great Sphinx of Giza (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs) latest talk to see where we are at and the history of the page to see that the problem is escalating.

—-- That Guy, From That Show! 2006-03-28 22:19Z

Protected. · Katefan0/poll 01:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:HK (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Template:HONG KONG (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Move protection Jeepers. There has been a move war over a damn template with a flag and two words. I have no idea, and don't care, who is right - but at least one of the participants is prohibited by Arbcom from doing renames and revert warring, does this count? Both participants were blocked for 48 hours and as soon as one returned his first edit was to move it again. SchmuckyTheCat 21:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

(ps The last admin who tried to intervene put the template and the redirect in opposite places, apparently because the other has more incoming links. The discussion, if there was any, was lost in the move war.) SchmuckyTheCat 21:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

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

Full protection vandalism by POV pushers. --HK 07:23, 28 March 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 19:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:Politics of the Republic of China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Semi-protection. One of several ROC related articles involved in an edit war by an anon who refuses to acknowedge or discuss previous community concensuous specified on Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Political NPOV. Previous consensus was the use of "Republic of China (Taiwan)" in article intros to reflect common short form. Anon insists on deleting the reference to Taiwan. Attempts made to contact said anon have been rebuffed. Anon appears to be using multiple IPs to circumvent 3RR. Requesting page protection for the community consensous version of the template as well as the consensious versions of the following articles also affected by this:

• Republic of China Air Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Republic of China Army (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Republic of China Navy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As I have been personally involved in this dispute, I hope someone uninvolved can go over this and decide whether protection is appropriate. Thanks. -Loren 07:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I have semi-protected Template:Politics of the Republic of China which I was not personally involved in, however someone else needs to have a look at the three other pages which I was actively engaged in. -Loren 08:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

List of WWE pay-per-view events (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection For the past few weeks, a number of anons have been inserting unverified information into the page. It's not just one or two IPs, either. It's a handful of them. This is common in wrestling-related articles, but this one takes alot of the damage. The information they keep reinserting comes from rumour sites, and can't be trusted. I've tried explaining it on talk pages and through edit comments, but they don't seem to get it yet. tv316 04:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I was just wondering if this one got lost in the shuffle? tv316 21:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was waiting to see if this one got hit today. So far only one edit -- there's been some fairly steady vandalism in the past (certainly enough to be really annoying), but with it only having had one edit today so far... I'm just not sure I can justify a semiprotection. Somebody else might disagree with me though. · Katefan0/poll 21:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

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

Full protection A number of POV pushers, one of which edits exclusively this article (soskpuppetry suspected) try to add a personal essay from a personal webpage claiming that must count a valid source. After a long dispute they engaged in a revert war. mikka (t) 03:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Protected. · Katefan0/poll 03:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

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

Semi-protection This page has recently come under vandalism attacks by anons users who fail to cite sources or discuss edits. I have constantly remined users that if they wish to edit they should cite a credible source and add to the discussion page. Seems that no users are following these rules. Request that page be protected to the unvandalised version until a proper discussion takes place on the talk page. -- Bmpower 18:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like edits from anons have subsided. · Katefan0/poll 03:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

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

Semi-protection This page has recently come under vandalism attacks by anons. -- Clevelander 16:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

This anon is talking, looks like a content dispute to me, not simple vandalism. He did violate 3RR, but it's not clear to me that he knew that was verboten. I've warned him about 3RR on his talk page. If he violates it again, report him on at WP:AN/3RR. · Katefan0/poll 17:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

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

Semi-protection This page is being attacked by the same guy over and over, but he does it from a very different IP each time. He spamvertises the page in an annoying manner. tv316 04:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. SlimVirgin 04:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

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

Semi-protection due to a high number of vandalism (profanity in a foreign language). Aucaman 04:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I see it's just one IP doing it, in which case it would be better to block it than sprotect, and I also see he's not done it for a couple of hours. I'll keep an eye on it. SlimVirgin 04:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

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

Full protection. Edit war lasting several days. Discussion on Talk is at an impasse. Users still persist. -Severa ?? | !!! 02:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't look bad enough to me to warrant full protection just yet. SlimVirgin 04:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Union of Concerned Scientists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Request semi-protection. The article is being rv'd by AOL users. they are removing sourced content. They have floating IP addresses. It may be one person or several.--Tbeatty 02:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

This looks like a legitimate content dispute, not vandalism, and I can only see one recent IP address. I don't know what all the issues are, but a brief glance shows you're trying to use consumerfreedom.org and activistcash (which are the same organization) as sources. These are not generally regarded as acceptable sources for Misplaced Pages, because they're highly biased websites set up by the tobacco, alcohol, and fast-food industries, with no obvious editorial oversight. SlimVirgin 04:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to review the request and article again. I don't believe there is a source solely from these groups, and where they are the opinion of a group, I clearly stated it as such. Opinions are certainly allowed (see NPOV) when they are attributed to the organization that holds them. Plus the IP user reverts everything without edit. By being an AOL IP they are allowed to revert an unlimited amount of times because blocks only last for 15 minutes. I have asked for useful edits without success. You can do a diff to see my edits. --Tbeatty 04:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Consumerfreedom.org isn't regarded as a reliable source and opinions aren't invariably allowed. The source to which the opinion is attributed has to be reputable, otherwise we could quote the opinions of Stormfront in articles about the Holocaust. When I last looked, I could see only one IP address reverting. I'll look again later. SlimVirgin 05:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that applies. StormFront is regarded as an extremist organization and extremist organizations are explicitly excluded (StormFront is explicitly listed). I used a a quote from a philanthropic watchdog group, which is opinionated (i.e. not NPOV) so they need to be sourced and stated as opinion, but they are relevant as they express a mainstream POV about organizations such as UCS that is relevant and substantial. Keep looking since he also left a vague threat on my talk page. --Tbeatty 07:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The article is subject of vandalism, and somebody even deleted the reference to the screenshots I took from my PC (which are permitted by Misplaced Pages policies). --Kiam 01:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It's noteworthy that the one vandal had his account, TruthInAdvertising, blocked from editing several days ago, and they have since carried on as an anon editor from various IP's. Unfortunately they are being extremely persistent, and it's been noted in on the article's talk page that this editor carries on a similar anti-RealBasic tirade on a related Usenet newsgroup. Warrens 03:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Could not it be protected from users whom make changes without to first log in, at least? --Kiam 13:40, 26 March 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.

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

The full protection of this site should be revoked as it is preventing any request for mediation.Carstenboswell 21:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)carstenboswell

This was deleted by consensus. If you want to request that it be undeleted you can place a request at WP:DRV. · Katefan0/poll 22:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The semi protection of this topic should be revoked as the conents are highly flawed. Lutherian 14:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It was only just sprotected. Won't hurt to leave it on a bit longer. · Katefan0/poll 20:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

User talk:70.70.185.49 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

There is no longer a need for this page to be protected. It is only supposed to be semi-protected, yet some admins are suppressing it for no apparent reason.

It is only semi-protected. And I'll be more inclined to remove the protection when positive contributions to Misplaced Pages start coming from this address. This is a good start, but I'm not too sure about this. If you wish to make positive contributions and leave your warnings behind you might consider creating an account instead. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 09:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

User talk:GoldToeMarionette (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

It is stated that this page was temporarily protected from editing to prevent the removal of warnings or introducing other vandalism to it. The page has never been vandalized, nor have any warnings ever been removed. In fact a quick review of the page history will show that nothing has ever been deleted from the page, or has there been any reversions. Please unprotect this page to allow this user to again be able to post to their talk page. Thank you. PunchingBag 05:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This user was likely engaging in sockpuppetry. Ask the protecting admin to lift the protection. · Katefan0/poll 20:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

2004 Indian Ocean earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This has been semiprotected after what appears to be some fairly run-of-the-mill vandalism. I may be missing something and would appreciate another admin taking a look at it. Thanks, BanyanTree 19:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected. · Katefan0/poll 21:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:Mergeto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why is this protected? The template is in dire need of reworking since a certain bug: if you merge from one namespace to another, the links are red. MOD 23:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

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

This page was supposed to be protected for a day or two for people to cool off. It's been three days and it's still protected. Can someone go in there and unprotect the page? Aucaman 05:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It's been unprotected. · Katefan0/poll 17:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

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

Protected for a long time.September Croboy 05:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Current requests for 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.