Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:22, 3 August 2005

• ]

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.

Sveasoft

James Ewing, owner of Sveasoft, has continued to linkspam Sveasoft's official site] on several WiFi-related pages, as well as editing the Sveasoft Wiki to remove any content that may be "detrimental" to his business. His main argument is that he removes links that violate the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, however:

• He has tried to get Google to remove said links. Google found nothing wrong with the links, and subsequently did not comply.
• He has tried to get WebDogPro to remove so-called "illegal" content. They never did, though the customer eventually cancelled his account. See this link: DMCA Copyright Violation Notice.

I for one do not approve of Sveasoft's business practices, but despite any former disputes with them I have tried to keep the Wiki article. Therefore, it is my suggestion to ban Sveasoft's IP range of 62.20.102.128/25:

% Information related to '62.20.102.128 - 62.20.102.255'
inetnum:      62.20.102.128 - 62.20.102.255
netname:      SE-SVEASOFT
descr:        Sveasoft Utveckling AB
descr:        Wireless ISP
country:      se
admin-c:      JE730-RIPE
tech-c:       JE730-RIPE
status:       ASSIGNED PA
mnt-by:       TELIANET-LIR
source:       RIPE # Filtered

--Tokachu 22:58, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Update: An edit war appears to be starting. I've already reverted once, but I'd rather not fuel the fire. --Tokachu 00:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sveasoft&oldid=20160974 is the complete page containing correct information. The discussion page has details on why changes were made. This page should be set for page protection as of the revision that I posted the URL for. Kf4hzu 01:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC) Update: Changed URL to more recent revision Kf4hzu 03:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, Tokachu has edited my user information page (not my talk page) with links to FUD and threats. Kf4hzu 01:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I did not add any of the links, and there are no "threats". It should also be noted that Kf4hzu is an employee of Sveasoft. Refer to Talk:Sveasoft for the full discussion. --Tokachu 01:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Kf4hzu&oldid=20146906 Saying the page will be set protected sounds like a threat to me. And those look like links. The history doesn't lie. Kf4hzu 02:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

That's merely enforcement of Misplaced Pages's policies. --Tokachu 03:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Request to unprotect: List of airports in the People's Republic of China

As below, the person requesting protection has done nothing to attempt to resolve the issues related to his request for protection. The article stood for months until he attempted to change, and limit, the scope of the article. There is no reason to keep this article protected. The nominator of the protection violated the standing version of the page and that is what is being protected currently. I have attempted to detail the differences between versions of the article in an attempt to have a valid discussion. If he is the only one objecting, than this protection is only serving to protect a version of the article without consensus and prevents other editors from moving forward. If there is some issue here, explanatory text in the article and not reverts and protection, are the answer. SchmuckyTheCat 19:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

" The article stood for months until he attempted to change, and limit, the scope of the article. "

Please don't say something which is not entirely true. Kindly take a look at the edit history, and one can tell what was the title of the article , what was it created for , and who changed its scope . Further, as below, I requested for protection not because of the disagreement, but the refusals to put on, and the many trials to remove the {{twoversions}} tag. — Instantnood 19:46, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

The change stood. People took that change of scope, went with it, and made subsequent edits. You, and you only, came along and complained. You revert warred. You reverseed everyone else's edits. Your version stands now. Once you got your way and had the page protected, you took your ball and went home. I've asked you to come to the talk page and discuss it to get it unprotected. It's been ignored for a week. Please justify why it needs protection. Please engage in meaningfull discussion on what's necessary to get the page unprotected. SchmuckyTheCat 21:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Request to unprotect: List of companies in the People's Republic of China

Since being protected the person asking for protection has not attempted any effort at resolving the issue and has had a week to do so. She obviously sees that her version is the protected one. In my world, a person asking for protection for non-vandal reasons hsa the obligation to at least attempt discussion or to find a mediator or RfC to resolve the problem. I've attempted to jumpstart that discussion by detailing the differences between preferred versions but there is no valid reason to keep this protected from people not involved in the overall dispute. SchmuckyTheCat 18:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I requested for protection not because of the disagreement, but the refusals to put on, and the many trials to remove the {{twoversions}} tag. The disagreement here is part of an ArbCom case. Both sides should refrain from controversial edits, instead of making edits as such: . — Instantnood 19:46, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

It is simply ridiculous, that while the Arbcom is on-going, you decided its perfectly alright to spark major arguments by making controversial edits, yet at this point in time, you actually think others should refrain from doing so by quoting an edit aimed at salvaging the situation.--Huaiwei 19:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

To repeat, the notice I added was similar to those on many other mainland China-related articles. — Instantnood 20:04, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

And to repeat, that can hardly be called an excuse when you are clearly aware that it will be met with strong protests particurly when its usage is not appriopriate.--Huaiwei 20:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know that was so far the only instance that the notice met with protests. And please be reminded here is not a place to continue the discussion on the articles. I requested for protection because of refusals to put on the {{twoversions}} tag, and many trials to remove it, while I have explained for several times in the edit summary why that version was chosen. — Instantnood 21:18, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

The twoversions tag is not an end, it is ugly, and should be removed by discussion and work towards consensus as soon as possible. It means nothing to readers. Obviously the dispute is not about that ugly template. Come to the talk page and discuss. You put the tag on, revert everyone else's edits, and then you got the page protected, took your ball and went home and stopped discussing. Do you propose that this article stand with this meaningless template in a protected state forever? SchmuckyTheCat 21:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

AIDS conspiracy theories again

Two issues: dispute over a potentially biasing title/method of presentation, and, dispute over whether a dispute exists. Continued edit war appears to me to be censorship of the existence of a dispute: . zen master T 17:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry about zen. S/he is upset that the title change s/he so desperately wants to that article has no consensus, and s/he now thinks its appropriate to place warnings on the article itself. This is in the context of zen's desire for the term "conspiracy theory" to be excised from the WP. S/he is holding the article hostage. --Mrfixter 17:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

A quick glance at the talk page and history will show there are half a dozen other editors that agree there is no consensus to sweep the existence of a lack of neutrality complaint under the rug. zen master T 17:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Monarchy in Canada

Edit war with Gbambino who keeps removing factual information. Homey 21:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Another edit war, protected. Dmcdevit·t 21:35, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

And unprotected five minutes later. Guess it wasn;t as contentious as they thought. :) --Dmcdevit·t 21:51, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh

An anonymous user keeps deleting sentense about Limbaugh meeting his wife on Compuserve. There is consensus among article contributors to keep it in, he has deleted it more than a dozen times. He shows no sign of giving up, and we tried reasoning with him on the talk page. Put it up on RFC as well. MicahMN | Talk 15:17, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

I have blocked the anon user for 24 hours for breaking the Misplaced Pages:Three revert rule. As it was only the one user, page protection shouldn't be needed. If they come back with a different IP or others take up his cause without disucssion then re-request page protection. Note that 3RR violations should be reported at WP:AN/3. Thryduulf 16:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Template:Islam

Edit war has taken a pause, but based on the past history of the users involved, I'm sure this will rise up again as soon as everyone wakes up in the morning. We're in the middle of discussion seaking compromise on the talk page, so hopefully we will work out things in a few days. Will also throw up on WP:RFC--Tznkai 02:35, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

No evidence of edit waring today, hopefully this will continue to be the case without protection. Thryduulf 16:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

FurAffinity

Page is being repeatedly vandalized by one user (IP 65.33.200.199,) but vandalisms seem too low priority to request administrator intervention, unless I'm misinterpreting the "Dealing with Vandalism" page guidelines. 65.33.200.199 has vandalized the page a total of four times, causing two reverts to be made today alone. Requesting temporary protection just to force a cool-down period. Barring that, at least requesting admins to look into the matter and determine the appropriate action.

Vietnam Veterans Against the War

This article is filled with Copyvio information that a particular anon keeps reinserting into the article, and is currently the focus of an intense RV war. TDC 18:06, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

According to the Edit Summary notes, it has been requested that you cite the Copyvio material on the Discussion page so that it may be reviewed and removed if necessary. It is impossible to tell from your edits what information you refer to, since your reversions corrupt 90% of the article. As of this moment, there is still no indication on the Discussion page of exactly what information you feel may be in violation. 209.86.4.248 19:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

The issue is still in talk, and by the way Copyvio infringements can be avoided by removing one or two words. TDC 20:19, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

They can? I'll bet there are some attorneys that would disagree with you. I've checked the Talk page, and you are right: The issue is still there. I see requests for TDC to cite the alleged violations, and I see TDC ignoring those requests. I see TDC tried this same stunt in October, 2004 and again in February, 2005, and Admins had to intervene. Closer examination of TDC's recent edit history leads me to believe his reversions are intended as antagonism, and not constructive editing. 165.247.202.224 08:39, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I am sure that some attorneys might argue all kinds of crazy things, but not this time. Also, if you go to talk, the citations are now there. TDC 14:57, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

• user:Geni has protected this article. Thryduulf 16:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• Slight correction: User:Geni has selected a preferred version, then reverted to that version and protected it. 165.247.214.66 17:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• Continual RV war with no end in sight with myself and an Anon user whose blocking would result in the blocking of too wide a band of EarthLink users. Anon user continues to insert potential copyvio material into article without discussion. Please protect article until issues can be sorted out in talk TDC 14:22, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

IP address

For weeks external links are being added and deleted (with no other type of edits). (This page had burned out at least one editor - Weyes.) It is the most frequently spammed page I have on watch (out of 2,500). Pavel Vozenilek 15:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I applies applied {{vprotect}} to it. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 15:50, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

I speaks goodly :) Dmcdevit·t 21:35, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

The lady doth protest too much =P Sasquatch′↔T↔C 23:33, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Eminem

vandalism I and others have reverted many times. May need temporary page protection or banning of vandals. Revolución 23:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

No vandalism today, so I'm hoping the vandals are bored of getting reverted. Request again if the situation changes. Thryduulf 16:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Pharmacy

This has been vandalised 7 or 8 times in recent days (always in the same way, although by different IPs). Please could it be locked until the vandal loses interest? --Batneil 11:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Done Sasquatch′↔T↔C 15:53, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

De La Salle - College of Saint Benilde

This articles has been edited by 202.69.161.135, adding irrelevant and wrong information to the article. --Circa 1900 04:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Currently tagged as a copyvio with no edits since 30 July. Protection not currently needed. Thryduulf 16:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Anus

Despite the fact that the referendum in the talk page, with 17 vs. 5 votes, asks to keep the controversial image, it keeps being deleted and reverted. --Army1987 10:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• I second this request - the image has been deleted several times today, despite the consensus on the talk page being that the image should be included. The page needs to be protected until this calms down. --81.77.247.192 00:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • There have been no edits regarding the picture today so I'm holding off on the protection unless the dispute starts up again. Thryduulf 16:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Just noticed that the images have been deleted again - have re-added them. --Kurt Shaped Box 08:02, 2 August 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)

• permanent protection is never apropriate on an article and is only used on a VERY VERY select few pages, e.g. the main page, copyrights page and disclaimer pages (the latter two of which are done for legal reasons). There does appear to be a lot of editing hapening here, but there is contructive editing going on amid the reverts, and apparently active, civil and constructive dialog on the talk page. For these reasons I don't think protection is apropriate at the moment. Thryduulf 23:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • The situation has deteriorated, where one user is persistently removing the majority agreed NPOV and wikify tags, and removing constructive edits. Advocate User:JCarriker recommended I request page protection (see User_talk:Konrad West#PastorRussell) --K. 09:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Furthermore, note that PastorRussell (aka Pastorrussell) is the subject of an ongoing user conduct RfC - Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Pastorrussell - for POV pushing and misconduct to that end. Tearlach 18:32, 24 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)

• I looked at the history and there hasn't been any editing in a couple of days. Perhaps this has cooled off for now. Dmcdevit·t 23:09, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see anything either. --AllyUnion (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Old requests / Completed 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 make a brief comment here.
• Other discussion should take place on the talk page of the article concerned or on user talk pages.
• Any ccomments left here that do not meet the above guideliens may be summarily moved or deleted at the discretion of any administrator.
• 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.

User:Lupin/overlib.js

Javascript library written by someone else. I don't want this to change (until it's time to upgrade it). Lupin 15:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure customized skins are protected by default. Only yourself or admins can edit it. Try logging out and see if you can edit it. --Dmcdevit·t 18:09, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Well, there's been a (helpful) edit made by User:Master Thief Garrett to User:Lupin/popups.js, so I don't think that's quite correct. Lupin 19:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

That's because he's a sysop and can edit protected pages... see here. I don't think protection is going to make a difference. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 20:50, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clearing that up! No need for protection, it seems. Lupin 21:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Please also protect User:Lupin/md5.js, for the same reasons. Lupin 19:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Macedonian denar

Last 40 edits are reverts. User:Theathenae did not answer to the talk page, but kept reverting. bogdan | 09:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Sheesh. Protected, but you two need to come to an agreement. Dmcdevit·t 03:47, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy (request unprotection)

Protected on July 19 because of an edit war about an external link. In response to an RfC about the dispute, only one registered user supported including the link, with 11 opposed. The only other support came from multiple anonymous IP's, most with little or no edit history except for comments on Talk:Ted Kennedy and vandalisms. The informal mediator, Kelly Martin, has recommended unprotection. JamesMLane 18:35, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected now. Dmcdevit·t 08:14, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

South Azerbaijan (unprotection please)

Protected since November 2004. I think the vandal has gone away by now.... Also, it is a double redirect, and people are thinking of moving the main article (Iranian Azerbaijan) into this one. --Hottentot

Unprotected and fixed. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 01:48, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Taiwan

The same anonymous IP-swtching vandal who has been reverting Template:Taiwan infobox has also been reverting this article for about a week now. Please protect and add Template:vprotected so he will go away. --Hottentot

Protected Sasquatch′↔T↔C 00:23, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Taiwan infobox

Some anon who changes his IP every single edit keeps recreating this page. He/she is pushing their own POV with the selected title (instead of Template:Republic of China infobox). It's obvious that this person will continue to revert unless the page gets protected. I added a Deletedpage template to it, and now all that we need is for it to get protected so this person will be unable to revert. --Hottentot

• Protected. Dmcdevit·t 23:09, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

AIDS conspiracy theories

On going dispute on the appropriateness of the title. An in good faith neutrality dispute from multiple editors still exists but the "pro" status quo editors errantly claim there is a time based limitation on dispute header or notice placement. zen master T 12:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• protected. I've taken the liberty of combining the two competing notices into one. See my comments on the talk page. Thryduulf 14:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • good idea, hopefully this will spur some talk page discussion of the issue. zen master T 14:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

User:TShilo12/Welcome

In light of a bit of conflict in the recent past, I would like this page protected so that it doesn't get messed with. It's in my userspace, but I don't have axs to PP. Thanks for your time and attention. Tomer 05:10, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Looks like a boilerplate to be used with subst:. Protected. --cesarb 05:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a bundle. Tomer 06:14, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Creation science

This article has been undergoing truly massive revert wars over the past several weeks, all centered on the first couple sentences of the article. Please protect to encourage discussion and cut down on the rage (there's nothing more angering for everyone than trying to compromise only to find their edits reverted in a second). This battling has brought previously receptive users into making borderline vandalous edits. -- BRIAN0918  03:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Denni has protected it. -- BRIAN0918  04:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

All articles related to regions of the U.S.

I have recently noticed that all of the maps on all of the articles concerning regions of the United States are being reverted. The maps being reverted are the standard maps that were originally agreed upon. They are now being systematically removed and replaced by maps that are not as accurate and green boxes that are not only non-standard but also unnesessary on most of the articles. I have done the best I can to undo these reverts, but it only ends up in the creation of new edit wars. (See the history page of almost any U.S. region article and you'll see the problem.) If nothing can be solved, then I suggest that the following be done to all articles related to U.S. regions:

• All maps be removed until disputes are settled
• All pages related to U.S. regions be protected from editing until disputes are settled

-- 67.85.2.175 04:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• I have protected all the articles on the intranational regions, as the other types of region don't appear to be affected. The articles are protected in the state I found them in. Thryduulf 14:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Please see Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject U.S. regions#Map series. Thanks. -JCarriker 17:05, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Tom_Anderson

An edit / Vandal war appears to be warming up or has already started. The page has been targetted as a place to insert information about that person that seems to be incorrect, unverifyable and the particular user(s) is not posting reasons as to why the unneccesary information should be included. Examples of such information unlikely to be factual include "a moonie and a formerly closeted homosexual, and was he in fact arrested for molesting cats" (from talk page). I stumbled onto the page yesterday. There appears to be a history of this problem and users on the talk page have requested that something be done but I can not find a formal request that has been made. Therefore on their behalf, I respectfully ask that the page be placed under protection for a period of time such that those who are placing unverrified and most likely unfactual information about Tom_Anderson lose interest. Thanks. Granite T. Rock 23:09, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

• protected. Thryduulf 13:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Vladimir Lenin

Several users are repeatedly removing sourced but critical material on Vladimir Lenin without any attempt to discuss the statements and sources. User:172 has also removed the Two-version template which states that there should be a consensus on the talk page first. Note that several of the same users, user:Mikkalai and user:172, are also repeatedly deleting even a NPOV template on Joseph Stalin, despite the objections of other users, see Talk:Joseph Stalin Ultramarine 21:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

protected. Thryduulf 21:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The discussion on the Talk page has been dead for three days, and the complaintant has made no edits anywhere. Is protection still necessary? Septentrionalis 16:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

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)
  • further comment moved to the talk pages. Thryduulf 16:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Thank you. — Instantnood 17:46, 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)

• protected. Thryduulf 10:15, 27 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)