Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:03, 3 May 2007

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

Current requests for protection

Place requests for new or upgrading of article protection, upload protection, or create protection at the BOTTOM of this section. Check the archive of fulfilled and denied requests or, failing that, the page history if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.

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

full protect. Ok, you might think that a full protection is unnecessary, but I will state three reasons why I believe it to be the best thing for Ronald Reagan. First off, we were recently allowed two weeks of semi-preotection, which (for a major editor of the article, like me) were heaven, and it was a wonderful opportunity to improve Reagan's article for the better. Reason number two: the semi-protection expired yesterday, in which 6 different IP users made little and pointless edits that should be made in the sandbox, and two edits were considered vandalim and were reverted. This is nothing comapred to before the article was granted semi-protection in the first place. The meaningless edits consisted of "tests" by IPs, such as adding this: "David Allen Fox of Gainesville, Georgia wants to marry Nancy Reagan". The user later reverted his/her own edit, but you get the point. With full protection, this won't have to be worried about. Third, Reagan is a controversial figure in American politics (maybe not like Richard Nixon, a fully protected article, but there are people who just dont like him), and I have experienced mean edits on the page, and mean edits directed toward me on my user page, all by IP users (to remain secret), just because I was editing Reagan's article for the better (I have been awarded two barnstars for my work on Reagan). Full protection would stop those users from ever vandalizing an already majorly vandalized page. I think I have now outlined my case for full-protection, and please consider granting it, for it would be a huge help. If you check out the history on Reagan's page, you will know what I'm talking about, and if you have any questions, please feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Again, thanks. --Happyme22 00:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Dylan and Cole Sprouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protect due to vandalism implying the actors perform fellatio. WAVY 10 23:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected for 3 weeks. – Riana_ऋ 23:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

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

semi-protect. Anon vandalism began as soon as protection expired, has been protected 9 previous times. Please consider an additional month. Article in need of revision per talk page. Legis Nuntius 23:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Cbrown1023 talk 23:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

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

semi repeated personal attacks against living people using the forums. --Iamunknown 23:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Page protected by Riana. Cbrown1023 talk 23:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you to you both. --Iamunknown 23:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

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

semi or full This should give a good idea of what's going on. In 1927 Azerbaijan was in the USSR. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  23:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected for 5 days, which is hopefully enough time to generate some sort of peaceful discussion on the talk page. – Riana_ऋ 23:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

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

semi-protection. Multiple anon vandal attacks every day for weeks on end. Attacks come from myriad of IPs. RJC 22:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Page protected by Riana. Cbrown1023 talk 23:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Please semi-protect. Plagued by anon editors who are conducting a revert war about Cantor's ancestry. The registered users interested are all contributing to the talk page, and making sense. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Cbrown1023 talk 23:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

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

full-protect. Two users insistent on reverting sourced material. Taken to the talk page has garnered WP:IDONTLIKEIT and accusations of anti-Israeli bias responses so far. Tarc 21:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Fully protected due to revert warring. Cbrown1023 talk 23:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

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

semi-protection Semi-protection, Persistent anon vandalism Wooyi 21:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Revert, warn and block vandals. Trebor 22:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

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

semi-protect multiple vandal attacks every day. This must cease! Galanskov 21:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected for 1 week. Trebor 22:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Semi-protect Constant IP vandalism - off-putting when article is going through improvement and expansion. CloudNine 21:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected for 1 week. Trebor 21:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

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

semi-protect this has been protected before and sorely needs it, constant anon vandalism --AW 21:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected for 1 week. Trebor 21:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Johann Sebastian Bach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

semi protect heavy anon vandalism. --Iamunknown 21:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Done by Majorly. Moreschi
• Done

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

semi-protect. People keep changing the name it "Beirut", a less popular version of the name, according to sources. Most of them are doing it through IPs or new names. - hmwithtalk 21:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This looks like the start of a dispute, which may require full protection. Please use talk pages and discuss changes. Thanks. Majorly (hot!) 21:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

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

A determined IP editor, using three different IPs so far, has tried three times over the past 12 hours (making several edits each time) to add material about a company to the page. Thank you. Anchoress 20:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected for 5 days. ^demon 21:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Full protect. I know Steel said earlier that he'd keep an eye on this article, but there definitely seems to be a full-blown edit war going on between Splitpeasoup and an anon over disputed POV. I'd just like them to quit constantly reverting each other and have some discussion about it. -- NClark128 20:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Fully protected for two weeks. Please discuss your changes on the talkpage. ^demon 21:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

HD DVD Night (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

semi-protect. Trying to keep the article free from the processing key, but anonymous IP users keep adding the key. HalHal 20:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected. Majorly (hot!) 20:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

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

semi-protect. Random vandalism, manily by IPs. Ashura96 19:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Done Walton 19:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Full protect. Sysin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is repeatedly deleting the term "Republic of Macedonia" as part of an apparent effort across multiple Misplaced Pages pages to replace the name - which Greek nationalists object to - with other formulations. I will be dealing with his conduct more systematically through the usual administrative processes, but in the meantime please protect the page to end the ongoing reversions/deletions. (Disclaimer: I could have protected the page myself as I have a sysop bit, but I refrained since I did a big expansion of its middle section recently.) -- ChrisO 19:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Fully protected. – Steel 19:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Massively multiplayer online role-playing game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protect - We've had quite a bit of IP vandalism for a while now. Greeves 18:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected. – Steel 19:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism in link removals. IPeditor has stated he is doing it to 'clean up' the links page, however, he is adding in his own link spam. I believe these edits are stemming from a chat conversation at . Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: External link sections are not for linking all and sundry. Will have a look myself. – Steel 19:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Semi-Protect Sustained IP vandalism by multiple users in the past 24 hours. VanTucky 17:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Declined - there's not enough recent activity to warrent protection at this time. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

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

semi-protection Article has been hit with frequent vandalism from several sources.--JForget 17:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected with an expiry time of one month. Lets hope it works this time. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Indefinite Semi-protection - numerous vandals with wide IP-range, several attacks daily, already for months. Last request made admin block an IP, by that had not effect on the vandalism. --Flammingo 16:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected with an expiry of 7 days, lets see how we go after that. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Semi-protect Unprotected a day ago, already about a dozen vandal edits by several unrelated anon IP's. This is why we can't have good things. At least a month, please. --Adamrush 14:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Majorly (hot!) 16:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Is that permanent? Can I edit in the semi-protection template? --Adamrush 18:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Current requests for unprotection

• WP:RFUP
• WP:RFPU

Before posting, first discuss with the protecting admin on their talk page. Post below only if you receive no reply.

• To find out the username of the admin who protected the page, click on "history" at the top of the page, then click on "View logs for this page," which is under the title of the page. The protecting admin is the username in blue before the words "protected", "changed protection level" or "pending changes". If there are a number of entries on the log page, you might find it easier to select "Protection log" or "Pending changes log" from the dropdown menu in the blue box.
• Requests to downgrade full protection to template protection on templates and modules can be directed straight here; you do not need to ask the protecting admin first.
• Requests for removing create protection on redlinked articles are generally assisted by having a draft version of the intended article prepared beforehand.
• If you want to make spelling corrections or add uncontroversial information to a protected page, please add {{Edit fully-protected}} to the article's talk page, along with an explanation of what you want to add to the page. If the talk page is protected, please use the section below.

Check the archives if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.

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

There's no edit war, no vandalism, no wikipedia policy violations. Therefore, the protection of this page violates WP:PROT and it should be unprotected. --Rodzilla (talk) 07:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I protected the article so I won't decline this request. The vandal edits have been deleted and consisted of repeated attempts to add a recently leaked HD-DVD decryption key to the article. It remains I high target for such vandalism in the future (which may have legal consequences- the Foundation has been contacted for clarification). I strongly recommend that this request be denied. WjBscribe 07:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Not true, there was a lot of vandalism. What needs to happen is to change to sproctect--Cerejota 07:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected I agree that it can be downgraded to semi protection. WjBscribe 07:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the page's history and didn't see any vandalism...where is it? --Rodzilla (talk) 08:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Oversight. Krimpet (talk) 08:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

also Universal v. Reimerdes I note that the DVD codes were posted there tonight. That's a potential WP:OFFICE issue - Alison ☺ 08:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Posting a string of letters and numbers which are relevant to the article is not vandalism. This article must be unprotected and the relevant content allowed to appear in the article. This is plain censorship. Madder 23:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Semiprotection will do for now. Voice-of-All 00:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

What is the purpose of semiprotection? Madder 00:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No harm done in protecting the page for a couple of days. I recommend a general philosophy of relaxation and cutting each other a lot of slack on such stuff.  :-) --Jimbo Wales 00:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Current requests for significant edits to a protected page

• WP:RFED

Ideally, requests should be made on the article talk page rather than here.

• Unless the talk page itself is protected, you may instead add the appropriate template among {{Edit protected}}, {{Edit template-protected}}, {{Edit extended-protected}}, or {{Edit semi-protected}} to the article's talk page if you would like to make a change rather than requesting it here. Doing so will automatically place the page in the appropriate category for the request to be reviewed.
• Where requests are made due to the editor having a conflict of interest (COI; see Misplaced Pages:Suggestions for COI compliance), the {{Edit COI}} template should be used.
• Requests to move move-protected pages should be made at Misplaced Pages:Requested moves, not here.
• If the discussion page and the article are both protected preventing you from making an edit request, this page is the right place to make that request. Please see the top of this page for instructions on how to post requests.
• This page is not for continuing or starting discussions regarding content should both an article and its discussion page be protected. Please make a request only if you have a specific edit you wish to make.

User:ChrisGriswold (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Requesting the placement of template:sockpuppeteer on this page per Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/ChrisGriswold. John254 17:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That seems like unnecessary branding, to me. What is the predicted benefit of such an action? Dmcdevit·t 23:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The template would assist users in identifying new sockpuppets of ChrisGriswold. John254 03:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Declined: ChrisGriswold has stated that he is concerned of troubles that may result in using his real name as his username, which is a very legitimate concern. While his recent sockpuppetry is clearly unacceptable, the open ArbCom request will decide what course to take in this incident; branding him with this template would only cause problems. Krimpet (talk) 08:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Blp0 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Requesting the replacement of the language "unreferenced negative" with "unreferenced or inadequately referenced controversial" for consistency with the provisions of WP:BLP regarding the removal of unreferenced information, and to avoid misunderstandings with users who do not regard the unreferenced information they are adding to articles as negative. John254 20:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. – Steel 21:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

L. Ron Hubbard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The recent edit war was begun due to questions about whether or not Scientology actually published or referenced a forged Naval service document when describing L. Ron Hubbard's career in the US Navy. I have found references that current Scientology webpages are still using the document. I don't know if the block should be lifted yet, so instead I'm asking that the references be added by an uninvolved sysop. To make this as easy as possible for anyone who wishes to help, here is a link to what I want to change: L. Ron Hubbard#After the war. And this is what I'd like replaced: tag with <ref>Description of Hubbard's service/awards from news.scientology.org as a rebuttal to a Boston Herald article: </ref> minus the nowiki tags of course. Thank you for your time, Anynobody 04:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Declined That citation does not directly support the claim He also claimed to have received 21 medals and awards, including a Purple Heart and a "Unit Citation" as the claim is being presented by the author, nor Hubbard, and as it is primarily an attack on Joseph Mallia, including that reference would not be conducive to maintaining a neutral POV on the article. —dgies_c 04:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you may have missed what Joseph Mallia was writing about. He was writing about the truth of Hubbard's claims to have been a "war hero", and the site referenced is refuting the claims made by Mallia. In doing this they refer to a fake document indicating Hubbard won 21 awards including a Purple Heart with "palm".

The real form in question was made public after a FOIA request and is very different than the one referenced by the CoS site. Since the links show clearly what the CoS claims, the two accounts should both be discussed for the sake of NPOV. Anynobody 06:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

He also claimed to have received 21 medals and awards, including a Purple Heart and a "Unit Citation"

Also the above statement was not Mallia's statement it was whichever editor here that wrote it:

1. Malia writes article
2. CoS rebuts Malia stating Hubbard earned 21 awards
3. Real naval record comes out:
4. While trying to post both records (Navy and CoS) I am asked to show that the CoS actually used the source it did, see: .

You seem to think it was Malia who said Hubbard won 21 awards, it's the other way around. Anynobody 08:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read my response. My reading comprehension is fine. If you want to make this change, propose it on the talk page, gain the consensus of other editors, and then make a new request here. —dgies_c 15:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of clarity, at this point I'm not saying you have to make the change. However your response does not acknowledge any of the other sources cited above by me or those already referenced in the article itself. The links I added here, that you say is an attack on Malia, are claims made by Hubbard's biographer that he earned 21 medals according to this document: . Since the biographer/CoS are citing the above document, it represents what they maintain Hubbard's war record was. Now that the Navy version has come out, and it's different, both versions should be on the article for readers to judge for themselves. Again you don't have to make the change, but please explain your original answer because saying it would be POV and doesn't support the contention seems to indicate either you or I may not understand all the relevant information. Anynobody 21:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Support addition of citation

• Anynobody seems to have spelled this out very well, with reputable secondary sourced material. Smee 08:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC).
  • It's a fine source for representing Scientology's position, but it's neither written by nor quoting Hubbard, which is the claim Anynobody has proposed it be added as a citation for. It can certainly be used as a citation for Scientology's claims, just not for claims ascribed to Hubbard personally. —dgies_c 05:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

List of ninjutsu in Naruto (S-Z) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm not sure if this is the place to request it, but... I'm looking for an extremely specific edit: One of the headers reads: "Shadow Shuriken Imitation Technique." It was actually changed to that from "Shuriken Shadow Imitation Technique" here, immediately before the dispute took place, and nobody caught it until after the full-protect. Several pages link directly to that header, so having the wrong header for an entire week will mess that up. A desire for this edit is expressed at the bottom of Talk:List of ninjutsu in Naruto (S-Z)#Summoning: Impure World Resurrection, though nobody has really brought up requesting a protected-page edit. You Can't See Me! 22:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Declined - this article was fully-protected only yesterday. It's important to discuss/notify other editors of your requested changes. Can you request this on the article's talk page with {{Editprotected}}, please? - Alison 06:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Requesting the correction of the following typographical errors:

invstigate => investigate

soly => solely

Thanks. John254 01:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Done -- zzuuzz 02:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

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

1. Request an edit as per the section "Bias" on the articles talk page. The dispute that required the protection should be largely resolved by the edit proposed as it has been agreed to by one of the disputing parties (and by one other editor on my own talk page) and not replied to by the opposing party (nor opposed by any other editor) since the compromise was suggested on 15 April.
2. The article page has a semi protected tag but is actually fully protected. This should be corrected by either making the page semi protected or changing the tag. Cheers Wayne 04:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Done - Phaedriel - 06:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Non-talk pages automatically signed by HagermanBot