Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:05, 18 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.

Request to Unprotect User_talk:Rangerdude

My userpage appears to have been protected for unstated reasons as I cannot edit it. I believe the protection was applied by either User:Willmcw or User:SlimVirgin and it seems to be intended to inhibit me from responding to a disruptive WP:POINT allegation made by Willmcw against me and currently being promoted by SlimVirgin for the purpose of impeding a new wikipedia guideline proposal, Misplaced Pages:Stalking, that I listed yesterday. Unfortunately this appears to be a side problem of a severe dispute involving the behavior of these two users that may require other dispute resolution. In the meantime though, I would like the ability to use my own user talk page to respond and request that a neutral administrator unprotect it. Thank you. Rangerdude 09:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Request to protect: Ken Kutaragi

Constant vandalism from GameSpot forum users.

Request to protect: Vietnam Veterans Against the War

Current edit war on separate versions of the article created by User:Hipocrite, User:Ed Poor, and myself and an anon user. Article was protected before to keep the same anon from continually reinserting copvio information. Anon will revert article as many times as needed to protect his/her version of the article. Protection is the only way to bring anon to the discussion page to work dispute out. TDC 02:12, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Request to protect: Winter Soldier Investigation

As with the above article there is a current edit war on separate versions of the article created by User:Ed Poor, User:SEWilco, and myself and an anon user. Also, as with above article, article was protected before to keep the same anon from continually reinserting copvio information. Anon will revert article as many times as needed to protect his/her version of the article. Protection is the only way to bring anon to the discussion page to work dispute out. TDC 02:12, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Request to unprotect Islam and slavery and Slavery and Islam

Both are redirects, which now point to another redirect. They both need to point to Religion and slavery. Thanks! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 02:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy

Again the same group of pro Kennedy editor are engaged in an edit war. The are now attacking user, Agiantman with an RFC to ban he/she due to persistance of disagreement. Please revert page to last by 24.147.97.230 which is the closest version to the previous quickpoll results to include the Palm Beach Incident. Please protect until ALL editors agree to negociate. The pro Kennedy group has not negociated in good faith. Thank you. 18.60.3.22 00:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Criticisms of communism

Some editors are now without consensus removing the Two-version template which has as a purpose to prevent an edit war. The template has previously caused a valuable discussion which has improved both versions. However, the editors supporting the less critical version are now refusing further discussions (See for example, many new referenced facts about communism and democracy and earlier talk discussions , , ). They are now deleting well-referenced facts without any attempt to explain why. They seem to be afraid to let others even see the the referenced facts and form their own opinion. Some of the same editors previously tried the same on Vladimir Lenin which caused it to be protected. That protection has now caused a good discussion on the talk page about the content and was thus necessary and valuable. This link leads to a version of Criticisms of communism with the Two-version template included so that the two most recent versions can be compared. I therefore ask for page protection with the previously included Two-version template again included. Ultramarine 20:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• The page in question devolved into two versions: one being edited by everyone, including Ultramarine, and one being edited by only Ultramarine. All other editors were content to have Ultramarine's version remain the "B" version while we all improved the "A" (collaborative) version. Ultramarine repeatedly reverted to "his" version, claiming that the two-version tag gave him the right to the "A" version, and asserting in effect that consensus could not exist without his consent. All other editors found his version biassed in whole or in part. There were multiple calls for him to abandon "his" version and join in actively editing the collaborative version. After a few repeats, I proposed a poll to verify consensus: the vote was 3-to-1 to remove the two-version template and invite Ultramarine to actively edit the collaborative version. I implemented the consensus, sparking a quick revert war, landing us here. See the talk page. Robert A West 22:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Furthermore, Ultramarine has threatened before to have this page protected, "using my version", if he didn't get his way; he also appears to have attempted a similar ploy on Vladimir Lenin — resulting in its present protection. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Ultramarine#Copyright and threat of rules abuse for details. I am not convinced this page needs to be protected; I am certain this sort of gaming of policy should not be rewarded. Septentrionalis 22:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Kazaa

Revert war in progress between two vandals - Mavol and 207.172.89.137. - 202.84.34.112 18:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Homosexuality

Protect against vandalism in progress. Vandal is climbing up NTL's ips one by one.--Tznkai 18:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Request to protect: World Genseiryu Karatedo Federation and Genseiryu

Three (or possibly more) authors are just blindly reverting one another. They refuse to discuss, except for lobbing insults around and I'm fairly sure the 3RR rule has been breached although the differing IPs make that hard to spot. Previously protected for 2 weeks, they were at it again within an hour of unprotection. The two principal culprits have, I understand, been blocked for 6 months from the Dutch Misplaced Pages for a similar war over there.

The first article listed is suffering more warring than the second, but it'll spill over the moment only one of them is protected.

I'm not an interested party here, so I don't much care which version is protected to. -Splash 22:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I protected Genseiryu on 14 July and World Genseiryu Karatedo Federation on 27 July because of the same users edit warring. They were unprotected recently by another admin and the edit war just restarted. Protection hasn't worked, as none of the parties involved show any willingness to try to resoplve the situation. I guess that it's time for an RFC, or maybe even arbitration. JeremyA (talk) 22:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Request to unprotect List of groups referred to as cults by some media outlets

Editors have reached consensus to unprotect, revert to this version: and move the article back to List of purported cults. Editors have agreed to resume debate about the future of the article and reach consensus before moving forward. --ZappaZ File:Yin yang.png 22:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, will unprotect. You can do the necessary editing. Fire Star 04:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Request to protect: John W. Ratcliff

75 edits in the last 24 hours, all pulling in different directions. All three main editors have been warned about possible 3RR violations in the article. A cooling-off period would be helpful. -Willmcw 21:44, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Request to protect: FilePile

This article is the subject of an on-going edit and revert war between what appears to be a former member of the FilePile community and current FilePile members who desire the article to be either inaccurate or nonexistant. The article is also currently being considered for deletion. See Talk:FilePile and Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/FilePile. I am requesting protection on this page to a) stop the edit war until the VfD process has been completed and b) to allow time for the many, many vandals currently editing the page to lose interest. — Adam Conover † 21:31, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Request to protect: Guantanamo Bay

Edit war over how to report the controversy over the legal status of the prisoners at Guantanamo bay. Repeated removals and restorations of text. --Tony Sidaway 19:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Protected. -Willmcw 22:33, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Request to protect: Out of This World (card trick)

Subject to an ongoing revert war with vandals attempting to blank out part of the page, and no edits made to the useful information. --Hyphz, 16 Aug 05 21:30 GMT

Request to protect: Emerging Church

The article has frequently vandalized and has been the source of many revert wars. Individuals vandalizing and/or reverting document do so in POV adding unverifiable information to the article. Even changes suggested by wikipedia admins and made by the community are not respected. The topic is controversial and high profile. A 30 day protection would allow the article to breathe and the community to come back in a month to revisit it for improvement. --Artisan949 09:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

are you sure? I see 6 edits in the past week - Stoph 09:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Request to unprotect: Racialism

The discussion isn't going anywhere (nobody has said anything in about a week, for example) and the page should not stay protected forever. See Talk:Racialism#What_is_going_on_here.3F. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 22:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Request to protect: Niger

A user or users from an NTL IP address (62.255.64.7 and 62.255.64.6) have vandalized this page 6 times within the past 24 hours. The user(s) have repeatedly added racist commentary to the article's first paragraph, and disrupted a legitimate NPOV discussion over a separate section of the page. Given the nature of the IP address, I'm not sure how else to deal with this nonsense.

--Anson2995 18:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Request to unprotect: Vladimir Lenin

There has been no discussion on Talk:Vladimir Lenin for ten days, except the reversion of a short flame by an anon (apparently as vandalism). The discussion is dead. Let those who want to edit it do so; for what it's worth, I am not one of them. Septentrionalis 21:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

There's been more discussion recently. -Willmcw 22:37, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

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

Three weeks is long enough. SchmuckyTheCat 15:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with unprotecting it, as long as all parties agree to keep the {{twoversions}} template, and refrain from editing and renaming other articles in similar manner, until everything related to the disagreements is settled. — Instantnood 15:20, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

And which version are you going to display in the meantime?--Huaiwei 15:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

To repeat myself, the template is not an endorsement of any version. The currently displayed versions are based on what the lists were intended for at the time they were created, before all those disputes took place. Please be also reminded that this page is not a place to continue the discussion over the lists. Thank you. — Instantnood 16:10, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Your definition of a "intended usage" of an article is an obvious loophole awaiting for another round of disputes. Yes, I agree these two pages have to be unprotected because this policy is not supposed to be a long term solution, but I would certainly like to know also if you are in any position to mediate and compromise after three weeks?--Huaiwei 16:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Does the Instantnood preferred version have community consensus? That's the only question. SchmuckyTheCat 16:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Those versions were displayed not because they are my preferred versions. I am not, and have never been, using the template in favour of displaying the versions I prefer. — Instantnood 16:58, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Then you'd be perfectly amenable to the version everyone else edited on being the displayed version - as long as the twoversions template points to your preferred version? Then what are we waiting for? SchmuckyTheCat 17:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

DeviantART

Repeated edits by someone using IP addresses in the 151.44.*.* range that incoporate bad prose, accusations, bias, and conclusion-jumping. I have to clean up after him on several ocassions; consider protecting the article if he strikes again. A.K.R. 06:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

He struck again; I'm reverting his edits as I speak. He has struck repetively on that page, making several false accusations. He also said that the notice I put on the top of all affected sections (as well as possible targets for vandalism) (which I did to discourage any more bad edits) was made by Scott Jarkoff himself. My experince is that he will srike again and again relentlessly, adding his own points of view and accusations should they be removed. The page should be protected as soon as possible, ignoring all of his edits and using revisions prior to his edits but after my lastest revert. A.K.R. 10:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Third time in 24 hours I had to revert edits from 151.44.*.*. In fact, looking through the page history, I think it may be the fourth time, breaching the three revert rule myself. This is getting frustrating; vandalism alert already up. Please take action as soon as possible. A.K.R. 15:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I think 3RR doesn't count on obvious vandalism - Stoph 22:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but these edits were not vandalism.

I'm not saying A.K.R. should be blocked for violating the 3rr (and I'm not so sure he did anyways), but i do think you guys could have interacted w this nube anon a bit better. I am sure he feels justified in what he is doing, and comments like this probably havn't helped much. His edits wern't great, but those blaring all-caps warning headers are a bad idea too. I suggest everybody calm down, and assume good faith, at least this guy is willing to use the talk page, unlike many anons. Please do not bite the newcomers ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 22:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

The vandal seemed to have left, and the situation is calming down. had come in and did some edits to clean up the article. Also, the vandal did finally take a look in the talk page, and Ambush Commander replied to him there. I was trying really hard to discourage him, and I admit somethings were overdone and I even breached the three revert rule myself. Glad that it's finally over. A.K.R. 05:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Prem Rawat

Repeated attempts by a newby editor User:Buchert a.k.a user:220.245.180.130 to bypass a consensus version that was reached after months of work last year by a large group of editors (this article was one of the most edited in en.wikipedia last year according to editors that worked on it). Consensus version marked as such on October 11, 2004. Read the Summary on the talk page. If you agree to protect, please protect the consensus version, not the unilateral edits by Buchert.≈ jossi ≈ 05:54, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Encyclopædia Dramatica

Repeated deletion of factual information (such as the registered name of the site's owner) from the article itself, as well as significant deletions on talk page. I've attempted to address the issues (both the deletions and the use of multiple userIDs by same person) on the article's talk page but to no avail. --carlb 05:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• Removal of personal attacks on the article itself and on the talk page isn't a valid reason to head for wp:rfpp. Perhaps Carlb wants wp:rfc instead, where the community can form some concensus? SchmuckyTheCat 05:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• The wp:rfc route was one that I had considered before the deletions of entire talk page sections started occuring. I won't rule the option out, however what has been going on goes well beyond "removal of personal attacks" and is cause enough for concern to be raised here. --carlb 05:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• I second the request to have this page protected. --Depakote 15:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Whatever the correctness of the variouse version being reverted to/from it is currently an edit war so Thirded--ElvisThePrince 15:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• This isn't a good case for page protection. It's only one persistent, and a few drive-by editors who are trying to push changes against several other people. If the "warring" editors are that strong about it, then it will go to 3rr or some form of dispute resolution. SchmuckyTheCat 15:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• As a matter of fact, the persistent user is well past 3RR, was reported as 3RR yesterday, and nobody did anything about it. There is no reason to keep the article from well-meaning editors because of the lack of enforcement of 3RR by the warring party. SchmuckyTheCat 15:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Your both as bad as one another!! You never know (flips a coin) you might get lucky and it's protected on the version you like, can't we just kill them all (protect it) and let god (the admins or consensus) decide (over the image/information about the owner/whatever)? --ElvisThePrince 16:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• I FOURTH this request. Some Wikipedians have been placing the picture of the owner of Encyclopædia Dramatica on the page, when she has specifically dislalowed her picture to be used on Misplaced Pages. From her website (bolding is mine, italics are mine):

The previous agreement on re-use of these images was for personal use, with a link required. At no point have I released these images into the public domain or in anyway relinquished my rights of ownership or my copyright of these images.

Due to the ambiguousness of the previous statement, I will make it more concise now: These images are not to be uploaded to any server for any reason at anytime. No one has permission to use these images for any purpose. Specifically, these images may not at anytime be uploaded to any open content server or re-liscensed. To go further, these images are specifically prohibited from being used on the website wikipedia.org or any other sites associated with wikipedia's owners, mirrors or affiliates.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at the contact info page. Keep in mind, however, that no one has permission to use these images for any purpose.

All rights reserved, copyright 2003.

See her website for more information, including a copy of the above text. Wikipedians keep placing her picture back on the Encyclopædia Dramatica after it has been removed. We should respect the wishes of the owner of the picture and not use it, otherwise, if we can't respect others, why should others respect us and use Misplaced Pages?--Azathar 01:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Commonwealth Realm

Please unprotect as per consensus on talk page. Homey 03:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected. -- Longhair | Talk 03:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Tobin R. Titus

Can someone please unprotect this page? It appears to have been protected against creation (it doesn't exist, and can't without unprotection). Moreso, this appears to have been done by the same admin that protected Ajax (programming) and Jesse James Garrett, acts that were done at the request of Sleepnomore, who is actually Tobin R. Titus. As he is the author of four books, it seems like we should be able to create a page about him, no? This all just smacks of him asking for pages to be locked (including a page about a person against whom he holds a grudge), and worrying about retaliation so asking for protection against the creation of a page about him. Jason 01:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

If you wish to recreate this article you have to first conduct a Vote for undeletion. Homey 03:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

This page was speedily deleted a total of four times and subsequently protected from being created anew. I don't think this here is the appropriate forum to request it being unprotected. You're welcome to file a request for undeletion or to propose a completely new version on the article talk page. --MarkSweep 03:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Ajax (programming) and Jesse James Garrett

Can someone please unprotect both of these pages? The reason cited for protection is persistent vandalism, and while some of the activity is legitimate vandalism, much of the other activity has been labeled as such but certainly is not. In particular, the user Sleepnomore has claimed that nearly every edit of his sections on both pages (both "Criticism" sections) is vandalism no matter what the edit; one of my edits was to remove a quote that he falsely attributed to Mr. Jesse James Garrett, and that quote is now preserved on the locked page despite still not being real. It is unclear how any of the activity rose to the level of locking the pages. Jason 01:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

If you wish to recreate these articles you have to first conduct a Vote for undeletion. Homey 03:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

These articles were protected because they constituted the battle ground in an ongoing edit war. I'm not against them being unprotected, but I don't see any activity on the talk pages that would indicate that the underlying controversy which led to the edit war has been resolved. --MarkSweep 03:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Then take a look again, specifically at the Jesse James Garrett talk page. There appears to be a reasonable consensus that the criticism section is petty and the reflection of a single user's grudge, but alas, it's locked in place. (And I again state that it's locked in place containing a quotation that is fraudulently false.) You say that the controversy has to be resolved; does that mean that until we all convince the single user that he's being unreasonable, the page will remain locked? Given that user's past behavior, it would then appear that it will be locked forever, and Misplaced Pages will remain a place in which one user can screw up the entire product. Jason 13:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Polonism

Edit wars and vandalism by anons and User:Breschie. --SylwiaS 00:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Protected -- Longhair | Talk 00:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I still haven't received a reply by, so I address this problem here. This is the posted text:

Hello, I would ask you if you could swap the protected version with either that of either "18:47, 14. Aug 2005" (comparing to the current:, as you can see the changes are not unreasonable) or "23:25, 14. Aug 2005"(comparing to the current:), the latter containing the edits of Alx-pl. The {totallydisputed} is justified because the article is not only vehemently biased as also the disputes on the talk page show; but also does the article contain far more than 5 dubious statements, whose verification no one could provide up till now, and so according to the guideline Misplaced Pages:Disputed statement ("If there are more than 5 dubious statements, or if a dispute arises: First, insert a "Disputed" section in the talk page to describe the problem. This will help focus contributions from others. Insert {disputed}} in the beginning of the article to add a general warning. Check dispute resolution for ways to resolve it.") an accuracy dispute should be marked, not concealed as some others are constantly trying to do. Thank you in advance. NightBeAsT 00:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Nightbeast, I asked for protection because the article has been constantly vandalised and reverted. I've read your comment on the talk page and I am open for discussion but not for revert war. Many sentences, which you marked as disputed are sourced. I will come with answers and I'm sure other editors will do as well, but I would also ask you to bring any sources not only ask for them. I hope we can move the discussion to the article talk page and work on improving it together. --SylwiaS 01:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

~ No, not many are of the disputed statements are sourced, only two are sourced. The statement about courts, one of those two sources, is wrong according to the given source, like 141.89.66.2 put it . The other sourced one is in polish and there is no other source if you enter "CDU anti-polonism" in google, except for Misplaced Pages and its mirrors. I therefore doubt the source is reliable. But whether you want to discuss them sometime or not, they're disputed. I would be very interested in why should not be preferred. That reduction of bias would also without a doubt reduce the number of vandals.NightBeAsT 01:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)NightBeAsT 13:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Football World Cup

presistent edit war (with several 3RR violations) involving user:Jooler and anon contributor user:201.135.7.127 about who ended third in the Football World Cup 1930. S;✉ 22:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

GNAA - unprotect

This article is protected, but there is no notice on the page, and no request here. Can it please be unprotected? There was an edit war on it between an admin and an anonymous IP yesterday, but there is a discussion going on on the talk page now. Sam Hocevar 13:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected. -- Longhair | Talk 22:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Tom Maguire and Republican Sinn Féin

Persistent vandalism, over a period of months, by anonymous user(s) from various IPs, reverting to the same POV version over and over again (Note that the related Continuity IRA page has also been protected for a 3RR violation by what is probably the same user ).

Tom Maguire history

Republican Sinn Féin history

Demiurge 12:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Chip Berlet - unprotect

Page protected on 8/5 after revert warring on David Horowitz section. Discussions on talk page produced a compromise version for this section with most editors supporting. No further disputes have been posted since 8/9, but page remains protected. Please unprotect so we can update the section to reflect the compromise wording. Rangerdude 08:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected after reviewing the talk page. Sasquatch讲看 12:49, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Cindy Sheehan

Very rapid vandalism. Three different people (at least) changing the page in rapid fire. One is deleting content and/or making non-factual. A second seems to be adding excessive negative quotes from the subject. Third trying to revert to factual article. This article needs to be protected in the most accurate version with a limited number of quotes and fact checking each source. Will need to be unprotected for editing on Sunday sometime to add new information. Americanus 03:46, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Protected -- Longhair | Talk 03:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

It has been unprotected due to lack of discussion on talk. Generally not a good idea to protect a current event page, even a vandal-magnet like this one. Instead I've added a commented out warning to the top of the page, which makes it clear that vandals may be banned without further warning. David | Talk 11:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Gunz

Incessant vandalism and an incredible amount of unnecessary edits (name changes for player-developed techniques that aren't considered widespread in the game itself, random addition of opinion, etcetera). Please protect latest revision (20:23, August 13, 2005). Thanks. -- nothingxs 00:28, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

protected. Sasquatch讲看 12:52, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Mordechai_Vanunu

Edit war going on between several users and Guy Montag, who insists on reverting large chunks of text purely to get at several words he thinks are POV pushing, ignoring common consensus. Please protect 07:28, 13 August 2005 revision, thanks Bastion 06:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Template:Disambig - unprotect

Please unprotect this template. I see no reason why it should be protected. The edit war seems to have long passed, and the template has no history of vandalism. Also, other frequently-used templates, such as Template:Geolinks-US-cityscale, are unprotected. --Ixfd64 06:57, 2005 August 12 (UTC)

Venona project

Incessant vandalism and edit warring despite cooperation among several editors with different views to resolve issues. Please revert to my version ] nobs 20:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Penis

This article is constantly being reverted. See its history for examples — CuaHL 19:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Protected. Redux 20:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Lithuania and Vilnius

Vandalized by User:Zivinbudas (Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Zivinbudas#Final_decision)--Witkacy 15:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#The_Return and http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Witkacy&action=history TheUnforgiven 17:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• No! The Vilnius article just got unprotected after being protected for 2 months. In my view this is excessive and deters those who want to make an honest contribution. Just block the vandal(s). --Revolución (talk) 21:15, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

They are afraid of blocking an entire range of Lithuanian IP #s. TheUnforgiven 21:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

To block Zivinbudas, it is necessary to block all of Lietuvos Telekomas (85.206.192.0/21). I have now done so, for a period of 3 hours, and Lithuania and Vilnius will be unprotected during this time window. It is 2:30 am in Lithuania, so this should be of minimal incovenience to other users on this ISP. Unfortunately, it will be necessary to re-protect later. -- Curps 00:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

-- Curps 00:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Capitalism

An anonymous contributor has been persistently reverting a minor edit of mine in the first paragraph of Capitalism, an edit to which no one else objects. Can someone please protect the page or help arbitrate this dispute? Thanks. Grant65 (Talk) 13:28, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Image:Werewolves.jpg

I posted two images owned by Wang Wei, Image:Werewolves.jpg and Image:Vampires.jpg who gave me permission to post them on Misplaced Pages. I used the tag {{PermissionAndFairUse|copyright}}. User:DreamGuy tagged it as a copyright violation. It is clearly not a copyright violation since the owner himself gave me permission to use it on Misplaced Pages but it may be a violation of Misplaced Pages policy. The copyright violation tag says "To the poster: If there was permission to use this image...please indicate so here." So I indicate how the user authorized the pictures to be used in Misplaced Pages. Also I added it probably qualified by Misplaced Pages and by all other licensees under the fair use doctrine since 1) it is being used for nonprofit educational purposes and 2) because there is zero impact on the market or value of the copyrighted work. DreamGuy keeps on removing what I added (which I added only trying to follow the instructions that I learn as I go) and replacing it with personal attacks against me like saying "editor has knowingly falsely labeled other images" which I have not and "Editor did upload claiming copyright with permission, could not show permission" which I can show or the owner can be contacted at blizzard@wangwei-art.com for further proof. Could you please either delete the image if it is a Misplaced Pages violation or protect it so that DreamGuy will not put personal attacks against me on it. Thank you. --Evmore, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, User:Evmore did put knowingly false information on images... Image:VampireKit.jpg, as one example, he originally claimed to be public domain without evidence, and considering that it's a modern full color photo with no license that's not kosher. More importantly the upload page specifically prohibits "copyrighted, used by permission" licences, saying that the images will be deleted... a fact which he keeps removing from the description of the image will trying to hide that fact. And "Fair Use" does not mean "well, I can't figure out any other way to use these, and I want to use them, so I'll just call it fair use."DreamGuy 05:52, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

No User:DreamGuy, the owner of the image did release the Image:VampireKit.jpg into public domain so I put the {{PD}} tag. But when you complained I could no longer get a hold of the owner as proof because his web site (French) is down so to make you happy I put the tag {{fairuse}} since regardless this image would constitue as fair use since 1) being in a 💕 such as this it is for nonprofit educational purposes and 2) there is no impact on the market or value of the copyrighted work. I explained all this to you perfectly clear on our talk pages. But then you tried acting like I lied to you or pulled a fast one which is clearly not the case. Just like you try to say I have a copyright infringement with the other images when Wang Wei specifically says they may be used in Misplaced Pages. --Evmore, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, being reproduced for free across an encyclopedia copied all over the web very seriously do affect the marketability of the photo, and the particular photo is not directly relevant to the articles you try to use it in, so the claim of using it for "comment or criticism" fails completely, as it is not being discussed, you are just using it because you think it looks cool. Also, as already explained, even if you were to prove that you have permission to use those illustrations, the upload page specifically tells you that images of that type will be deleted, and again fair use their fails for the same reasons... you have interefered with the marketability and that particular image is not the thing being commented upon... And all of this has previously been explained to you, but you kept deleting it off your talk page and off the images in question, demonstrating your bad faith. DreamGuy 07:01, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Are you kidding? The image is directly related to the article. The article deals with limitations of vampires, including staking, holy items, garlic, etc. This image, which has everything mentioned, is a tool used against those limitations. It is perfect for the article. Plus the image is of a small enough size it does not impact the market and it is you that has inferred marketability...and you are the one who brought it up that is why I am commenting on the image. As for the other images, I am now well aware what the upload page says as are the administrators who will decide whether it will be deleted or not. Your two-bits are not required on the image page, what is required is, "To the poster: If there was permission to use this image...please indicate so here." That is exactly what I am doing. You continue to remove those remarks to give the impression that I do not have permission. Adding what I am instructed to add is not in bad faith, removing it is. --Evmore, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

No, I am not kidding. To be fair use it can't just be that it somehow relates, it has to be a lot more than that. Tons of images that relate in some way get deleted here, and rightfully so. You can't remove the text off the images you upload when they show you making false statements. DreamGuy 08:23, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Well let the people who are responsible decide and stop deleting the information guidelines have instructed me to add. --Evmore 11:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Have you considered appending your comments to those of other users, instead of simply deleting them and replacing them with your own so readers can read both sides of the argument? You are very likely to be blocked from editing if you continue revert-warring over these comments: indeed, in the strict interpretation of the WP:3RR, you are already eligible for temporary blocking, but you have so far been cut some slack by admins. Don't abuse the privilege. -- Karada 12:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I wouldn't have violated the WP:3RR if User:DreamGuy would not have violated it as he has been blocked for that in the past. I have numerous times saught Administrator intervention. Regardless, I have implemented the changes you suggested and it should no longer be a problem. Thanks. --Evmore 13:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Mile

An edit/revert war has been playing out on this (and several other) pages for several days now. Two of the parties are involved in a mediation request, and one of those is continuing to edit the contested articles. The other has declared a unilateral truce. I'm requesting that this article be protected for the duration of the mediation. Thanks! Ken 03:08, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Jihad

Can administartors please keep an eye on this article? I think an edit war is brewing.--Tznkai 14:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Requesting page protection. Pick a version. Any version. I really don't care.--Tznkai 16:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Kim took care of it. Listed on WP:PP

Request to edit: LUEshi

Please edit this page to redirect with #REDIRECT], as the current redirect is out of date. Thanks.

You may also want to fix the fact that there are no protection notices on the page, nor is it listed on the protected pages list. - Stoph 05:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

here is the info: (not sure if it should still be protected)

09:57, 18 February 2005 Duncharris protected LUEshi (protection of redirect from vandalism)

- Stoph 05:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I've unprotected it - 6 months protection against vandals is more than is needed. The reason there are no protection notices on the page is the MediaWiki software removes everything from redirect pages other than the redirect itself. Thryduulf 08:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I'll fix it now. - Stoph 09:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Request to unprotect: Vietnam Veterans Against the War

User:TDC is carrying on a pointless crusade against this article, because it may have a few copyrighted sentences contained therein. It has been protected by an admin and I request it be unprotected and TDC warned to stop his foolish nonsense. If there is copyrighted material, then it should be removed or rewritten. --Revolución (talk) 21:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Template:Delete

I am renaming all the speedy deletion templates to fit a common pattern as was discussed in the TfD of {{nn-bio}} (now {{db-bio}}). Could someone please unprotect Template:Delete which is now protected due to vanadalism, long enough for me to do this? DES 19:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Oh, for the love of mike -- LEAVE TEMPLATE:DELETE ALONE. It seems like every couple of weeks someone wants to dick with this, always a different editor with a similar idea, and the exact same arguments are made against renaming it, deleting it, or whatever. Of course, when arguments to change, remove, or get rid of it are made in obscure places like the TfD of db-bio, the person wanting to change, remove, or get rid of it comes to the conclusion that there isn't any particular opposition to changing, removing, or getting rid of it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Please see the relevant discussion at Template talk:Delete. IMO, Delete should be left alone. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 21:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• To make it clear {{Delete}} would be left as a redirect. The only reaon for the rename is so that ALL the speedy deletion tempaltes can have names with the same prefix, so that they will group together in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. I am not trying to get rid of {{tl|delete} and it will still work exactly as before. it will just be a redirect to a name that matches all the other speedy deletion templates. Does that sound like the "same idea as before"? This was rquested by several admins working speedy patrol, so that all the deletion templates would group together, and my promise to do this was one factor in the recent decision to keep {{db-bio}}. That is the only reason for the proposed rename, it is not an attempt to do away with or deprecate {{delete}}. Does that clarify matters a bit? DES 22:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • After review of the relevant discussion, I feel that this should undergo community debate first. I would recommend that DES post it on the Village Pump, and wait for replies at Template talk:Delete. We'll see what happens after a week or so. How's that sound? Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 00:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Why not just make the new name a redirect to this? That way you don't need this unprotected and it won't upset people, like me, who like things like this to stay the same. This link is Broken 21:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Because the whole point of the new name is to be the actual name, so that the names that appear in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion follow the same pattern. Redirects don't apper in that category. Frankly I suspect most people will continue using the old name (which will be retained as a redirect), but it will be highly convienient if all the real (that is, non-redirect) names have exactly matching oprefixes, so there is no chance of actual pages tagged for deletion sorting between the tempaltes. There would be no point at all in just adding a new redir. DES 13:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Why do we care if they all follow the same pattern in the category? It's not like that's seen by our readers and it adds little functionality (they are allready grouped properly and it is unlikely somthing will fall in between). Give people more credit, it is possible to notice if another article is stuck in between these. Also, why can't all of the other templates just be metatemplates of deletebecause? This categorization system is silly who wouild actually use Template:Db-reason when Template:db exists? This link is Broken 20:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Hmm It occurs to me that simply addign a pipe to the category designation would accomplish most of what I want here. Would some admin just edit Template:Delete to add a pipe symbol followed by "Db-noreason" (or any other string starting with "Db-") in the category designation, or unprotect long enough to allow me to do that at least? That wouldn't have any negative effects that I can see. DES 13:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I do not think that is what you really want. All that does is determine where the template is sorted in the cat. But it will still be listed as "Template:Delete" because that is its current title. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Remember that Misplaced Pages:Categorization#Category_sorting says that "Contrary to some expectations, text after a pipe ("|") in a category link is not used in place of the category text. Rather, this text is used as the sort key on the category page itself. However, again contrary to expectations, that sort text is not displayed." Thus, when you do what you suggest, the template name would then be listed under "D", while the rest of the speedy templates would still be listed under "T". Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
      • It is precisely the sorting that I want to affect. When {{nn-bio}} and other speedy deletion tempaltes were created, there was a complaint made that because they didn't sort with the other existing deletion tempaltes in the category, admins on delete patrol would mistake them for pages to be deleted. It was requested that all such tempaltes start with a common prefix to avoid this problem. I guess to use the piping correctly, it should pipe to "Template:Db-noreason". My object is that all the deletion tempaltes will appear adjacent to each other in the category, even if a quite similerly named page is up for deletion, for example the hypothetical Template:Disestablishmantarianism (which would sort between "Delete" and "DB-" DES 20:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Adding a cat sort key (other than {{PAGENAME}} or {{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}, of course) would also add it to all the articles tagged with the template. As for the naming issue - why perpetuate the cryptic db-whatever convention? The other templates are better off at {{deletebecause}}, {{deletennbio}}, {{deletenonsense}}, etc. than {{delete}} is at {{db-noreasongiven}}. —Cryptic (talk) 21:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Cuba

This page has been subject to an edit war involving NWOG on one side with several others (inculding myself) on the other. Caerwine 19:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

User:NWOG has been blocked for 24 hours for WP:3RR violation. See WP:AN/3RR. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 01:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Iraqi insurgency

Currently the subject of an edit war - me Adam Carr and others vs NoPuzzleStranger and Ruy Lopez. PMA 19:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

And what's protection supposed to accomplish? This is just delaying a permanent settlement, since the edit war will resume once it's unprotected, and in the meantime the side whose version is protected will not bother to discuss. NoPuzzleStranger 19:44, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Image:Canada flag large.png

I know it is an image, but for the past week or two, I have seen this image get replaced by a picture of a penis covered in feces. This seems to be a recurring issue so I am asking for the image to be protected due to this vandalism. Thank you. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Can an image be protected from reuploads (and not just changing the text)? That may have been a stupid question, but I honestly can't find it discussed anywhere. Secondly, as this image is on Commons, identically, why can't it just be deleted? Dmcdevit·t 02:52, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

It will be protected from uploading. Plus, if the image is on the Commons, here is what can happen: the vandal can put the image on the Commons disruppting one or more projects or upload the image here and instead of seeing the flag on here, you see the penis. While the flag on the Commons will be untouched, there will be some many confused people over here. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:56, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh yea, I protected it, thought I'd mention that :-) and blocked the user responsible. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 05:59, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Criticism of Islam

(I've moved this here from Misplaced Pages:Protected page)

Requires extra protection due to an admin with an anti-Islam bias re-creating the VFD'd article on August 1 2005. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 16:31, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

No need for protection right now, the discussion seems to have stopped. --cesarb 01:06, 9 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)

HELLO ADMINS. PLEASE NOTE THE MADDENING DISCUSSIONS ON THE TALK PAGE OF THESE ARTICLES. We are now at 40k each of this ridiculous discussion. This is one single user who refuses to make any concession, who refuses to talk, who refuses to address questions, and whose proposal to move forward is to fork the articles (via the twoversions template). This page protection is ridiculous. We cannot have a single user acting as the arbiter of these articles. SchmuckyTheCat 22:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The point of the protection is to stop the revert wars. I do not have any confidence that if the protection was removed the revert wars wouldn't resume just as soon as both sides became aware of it. There is an arbcom case ongoing, hopefully the outcome of that will shed some light on how to procede here. Thryduulf 23:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• There have been 10 people editing the company list, and 6 people editing the airport list since the version that is under protection. You're clearly protecting this single users version against community concensus. That single users refuses to do anything to join the community in the spirit of working towards agreement. This is a violation of the very spirit of wikipedia. SchmuckyTheCat 17:49, 4 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)

I am not going to unprotect this at the moment, for the same reasons as the airports article above. Thryduulf 23:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• There have been 10 people editing the company list, and 6 people editing the airport list since the version that is under protection. You're clearly protecting this single users version against community concensus. That single users refuses to do anything to join the community in the spirit of working towards agreement. This is a violation of the very spirit of wikipedia. SchmuckyTheCat 17:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Vampire fiction

user called DreamGuy is constantly trying to move a section from the vampire article tro this section w ithout consensus. please udo his changes and protect the article. id undo his changes myself, but im sick of editwarring, and im trying very hard to be a good 1rr person. thank you Gabrielsimon 06:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Err, actually the section in question from the Vampire article was already moved and not currently present, and the other article is already locked so the section he is talking about can't be moved there. And the discussion is clearly showing consensus for the section's move anyway, with at least four editors in favor and only Gabriel (undergoing RfC for extensive POV editing) and a brand new user created today who talks like the same guy who was blocked from the page and Misplaced Pages in general twice for sockpuppeting, etc. But then Gabriel is currently trying to move movies and televisions shows off the fiction page so perhaps a lock is in order anyway until the sock can be cleaned out and Gabriel gets banned for the 3RR violation he made today. DreamGuy 06:23, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

you never got consensus to do any such move, and you only said you did while i was blocked. a blockl which you got me to accidentally undergo by using insulting baiting edit sumamries. and the RFC is not becasue of that, I suggested Vampire Fiction be merged with Vampire, yes, but tjhat has nothing to do with yuor excessive reverting of what multiple editors disagree with. please stop crudsading. to admins, please undo his lone ranger-esque changes and protect the page. thank you.

Gabrielsimon 06:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Does that mean you're both in favor of protection? SlimVirgin 06:31, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

sounds like it. please revert his lone ranger-esque changes and then protect it. thanksGabrielsimon 06:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to need protection at this point. Gabriel didn't revert the restoration of whole sections he deleted, and the sockpuppets appear to be gone or laying low. Discussion of how to handle both article is ongoing on Talk:Vampire. DreamGuy 03:22, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

your the one it needs protection FROM.

Gabrielsimon 03:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

another point. I dont HAVE any puppets. geeze, get a hobby. Gabrielsimon 03:59, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Intelligent design

Please unprotect the ID page, there was no request for protection, and have been no significant revert wars. Edit summaries have been good and discussion, while lively has been civil. -- thanx, --Silverback 05:51, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I protected this because there was a revert war today and an apparent mass deletion of material by Silverback, which two editors objected to. I'd like to keep it protected so that a consensus can be reached on the talk page. SlimVirgin 05:59, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Most of the material deleted was duplicative of material on related pages. What happened on this page hardly qualifies as a revert war. Those two editors that "objected", did not request protection and are still communicating on the discussion page. Try to go someplace where you are really needed.--Silverback 06:04, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

If the other editors want me to unlock it, I will, but what I saw was a revert war. SlimVirgin 06:07, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

The talk page shows complaints on both sides about the reverting, including from you. SlimVirgin 06:15, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Since when are reverts not allowed? They are part of the dialogue. You should reserve page protection for vandalism and intransigent revert wars.--Silverback 06:17, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

"Since when are reverts not allowed? ... You should reserve page protection for... revert wars." - am I the only one who sees the comedic value in that statement? →Raul654 06:40, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Hopefully not many here get off on mocking like you do.--Silverback 06:44, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

With Bush now pushing 'intelligent design', this topic is likely to be closely watched. It is an important test of Misplaced Pages as a whole to see whether people can continue to edit pages in an open-access manner when controversy strikes. I hope the editors will look for all possible options to continue the editing and expansion of this page. Besides, I see the "ID movement" as a sales gimmick, so if and when ID is mandated in classrooms, I would really like Misplaced Pages to have a page on the topic that is so thorough and even-handed that teachers are not forced to purchase pseudoscientific textbooks but can simply refer students to the Misplaced Pages page!Mike Serfas 07:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Tnzkai has left wikipedia (see his user page). If User:FeloniousMonk goes on vacation you could be blocking the community for weeks. Why not remove this unrequested and unnecessary block?--Silverback 06:37, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it and won't keep it protected for long. SlimVirgin 07:51, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

user:tznkai is on semi-permenet vacation from community participation, not editing. furthermore, he is not fond of speaking in the third person, so he will stop now. Anyway, Silverback's revisions in this particular time period were objeted by myself and FeloniousMonk. He has also been in conflict with a number of other editors. Discussion is still under way on the talk page. I think we could use atleast another 24 hours to discuss. FM has posted an invitation to Silverback to discuss as well as something very similar to an apology.--Tznkai 15:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh. I'm requesting we keep it protected until we figure this out. Thus far( and I may be to blame for this) things have not gotten better --Tznkai 17:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Please keep this page protected!! It is really needed!! The edit wars on other pages are nothing compared to this. This discourse is all petty and personal, we can't make any progress at all. I doubt this page will ever be able to be unprotected! --Silverback 03:39, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Uh. We're going to go ahead and try to finish discussion. If that seems to go nowhere, we'll probably end up on our way through dispute resolution. I really can't tell what SB is trying to get at here, but I'd request admins to keep an eye on the page. --Tznkai 16:31, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Sean Howard

The page has undergone some recent changes recently as the author decided to shut down the sites mentioned in the article. This page has been linked on a few online forums as a reference for the history of the comics and related incidents, and it's been consistently vandalized over the past couple days by anonymous IP addresses. Protecting it for a few days would probably cause most people to lose interest and we could resume editing afterwards. The article is far from complete in its current form and people have complained it may too be biased for the author, but in the short term that's preferrable to it getting vandalized, and discussion for improvements could just be put on the talk page.

Appears to have died down. I don't see a need at the moment. Dmcdevit·t 02:44, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

User:Reub2000

An annonymous user (in the 65.182.172.* range) keeps on vandalising my user page with "Racist and professional asshole to the stars aka "Reuben Perelman"", and has done so 3 times. I'd like it protected as what it currently is. Reub2000 23:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

They appear to have gotten fed up with being told off for vandalism and gone away, so protection not needed atm. Thryduulf 00:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The user has a history of personal attacks againt me and several other editors who dared to disagree with him/her over the Italian Beef article. I doubt it's over. Reub2000 00:28, 4 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 comments 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.

Daniel Pipes

An anon is violating 3RR using dynamic IP addresses (69.xxx), trying to draw attention to Pipes being Jewish. This same anon is being blocked elsewhere for anti-Semitic editing, 3RR violations, block evasion, disruption, sockpuppetry (confirmed by the developers), and personal attacks, but keeps returning with different addresses. I can't protect it myself as I've edited it recently, and I don't know whether it quite fits our definition of vandalism. Edit history here SlimVirgin 21:17, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Protected, though I think it will be a short one. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 21:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Request to protect: User:Collabi

216.68.49.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) appears to be coming along and vandalizing my user page with some obscenity or another every day or so. He appears to have been warned about vandalism before, but frankly since it's just my userpage and I don't plan to edit it anytime soon, the easiest thing would be to just protect the page until he forgets about the whole deal and goes away. Collabi 21:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

done. clearly being vandalised and my personal view is that user pages should only ever be edited by the user concerned anyway. shout if/when you need it unlocked --Vamp:Willow 21:59, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Request to protect: Ted Kennedy

Edit war, please protect. 24.147.97.230 21:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree on the need. locked. see talk page and take it there. --Vamp:Willow 22:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Request to protect: Robin Cook

News of his death has just hit the media. The page has been edited accordingly, but has been vandalised and blanked twice in three minutes from different IP addresses. Perhaps it could be protected for a while? Vashti 18:15, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

seems to have settled down a while now. I shall monitor though --Vamp:Willow 22:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

gah! spoke too soon. it has clearly boken out again - have loced at the state that rvs seem to usually go back to. --Vamp:Willow 22:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Request to unprotect: Robin Cook

We should never protect in these situations. Please let people edit while it is a current event, or we bring ourselves uinto disrepute as being up to date and waste any interest currently in him. If the Popes got away without locking, why should we lock Robin Cook, SqueakBox 22:30, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I agree this was locked far to quickly. Locking a page should be used as a last line of defence not at the first sign of trouble. If every page that suffered vandalism was locked then a great deal of the WikiPedia would get locked Jackliddle 22:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC) Well it is unlocked right now, and everyone in the UK appears to have gone to bed, SqueakBox 23:17, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Lifestyle anarchism

request that the last version by Heah be protected. User:chuck0 continues to revert to a npov version, and has failed to respond or discuss on the talk page. please see Talk:Lifestyle anarchism and User talk:chuck0 for background on the debate and citations. --Heah (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• update: chuck0 has been blocked for 24 hours for violating the three revert rule both at Lifestyle anarchism and at Chuck Munson. --Heah (talk) 00:09, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • protected. Thryduulf 08:31, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)

This is the latest battle in the war over "BC" and "AD" vs. "BCE" and "CE". Maurreen (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• no edits since 3 August, so no protection needed. Thryduulf 08:27, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Bogdanov Affair

Igor Bogdanov himself is altering constantly this article by removing any fair allusion to the critics against his "work" and by adding fallacious references to acadamic support of his "work".

I suggest to protect the last unmodified version of this article.

He is currently doing the same thing on the french page "Igor et Grichka Bogdanoff".

A solution would be to block the IP range 82.123.178.0 - 82.123.178.255.--YBM 17:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Update : Igor Bogdanov Bogdanov is vandalizing the page several time a day.--YBM 23:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• protected. Thryduulf 08:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

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)

UPDATE BY WEBDOGPRO: I was actually the host and the client, thats how we managed to keep the files up so long. But then the datacenter pulled our plug, so we had to remove the files since we where selling hosting on that server and needed it online... i cant beleve this is still being talked about! (Max@WebDogPro.com)

• Mediation appears to be happening, I don't want to prejudice this with protecting the page. Thryduulf 08:20, 6 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.

• Vandalism has apparently stopped. In any case where vandalism is being performed by one user, then WP:VIP or WP:AIV is the better palce to report it, as the user should be dealt with not the page. Thryduulf 08:17, 6 August 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)
      • No vandalism since 2 August. Although the removal of the pictures is annoying, there is not happening so quickly or persistently as to require protection imho. Thryduulf 08:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Expansion theory

Edit war between an "anonymous" user (Mark McCutcheon) and everybody else. --Hob Gadling 10:09, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

• I emphatically second this request. An anonymous user acting under several IP addresses (after the first one was blocked) has tried to enforce his version of the page (which reads like an advertisement for McCutcheon's book), in gross disregard of 3RR, and against a strong consensus to the opposite. He has about 25 reverts or so in a couple of days. Please protect this page at the pre-revert-war version. ObsidianOrder 15:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Protected by Jayjg. Thryduulf 08:12, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Request to protect: List of groups referred to as cults by some media outlets

An edit war based on a VfD that failed to reach consensus in a 50/50 split. Numerous moves in a very short period. Could use with some cool-off period to allow consensus to build before moving forward with this very controversial subject. --ZappaZ File:Yin yang.png 05:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

• protected. Thryduulf 07:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • might I request that it be reverted to the last version by Sjakkale and to its original title, and then protected? Some editors are claiming that the lack of consensus to delete the article constitutes an endorsement of their unilateral change of title and criteria for the article; protecting it on such a version will unfortunately prolong the edit war, as it looks like administrative support for the "de facto deletion" of an article that survived VfD. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Request to protect: Template:Christianity

A variety of anons (195.130.76.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 217.67.22.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) et al, probably sockpuppets) seem to come along every few minutes and replace the cross icon with genitalia. Maybe the template is worth protecting for a few hours until they get bored and go away. Collabi 04:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

• The vandal appears to have gotten bored shortly before 5am UTC. No current need for protection. Thryduulf 07:54, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Request to protect: BOT2K3

Persistent vandalism. Having to revert again after just 5 or 10 minutes of reverting the first time. -- Nick2588 02:36 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Vandal apparently stopped after being given a final warning on their talk page. If they come back report at WP:AIV and get them blocked. Thryduulf 07:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Vandals are not stopping, and will came back with a slew more of IP addresses. Page has been reverted for being vandalized a dozen of times over the past two days or so. CadeF 11:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Request to protect: Vietnam War

CJK and I are in disagreement. -St|eve 22:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Whoa here. You haven't responded to my points in talk and you are wanting to protect it already? CJK 5 August 2005

protected. Thryduulf 08:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Request to protect: Kalarippayattu

See Talk:Kalarippayattu
JFD 21:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

protected by Stevertigo. Thryduulf 08:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Request to protect: Billboard Hot 100

Several days ago a discussion began about various chart achievements and totals on the Hot 100. I began a string of text in the Discussion section to attempt to work out some of the statistics (specifically regarding whether or not "Pre-Hot-100" statistics should be included, most notably affecting Elvis Presley's rankings, as many of his big hits were prior to the implementation of this chart). Several days passed and with only one response, I edited the article to compromise with the one respondant, to modify chart stats and totals throughout the entire article. Each time I placed a new entry in the Discussion forum before making any edits to the main article. Since adjusting the statistics thoughout, user 70.120.92.148 has reverted my changes several times, without comments in the Discussion tab and without going through the whole article to make sure all stats are accurate and that they compliment each other. Not sure what can be done here other than protection. As I am not an admin, I am unsure whether I have any authority to directly confront him with warnings of any kind. Any assistance is appreciated. Thanks!

• eo 19:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Protected by Stevertigo. Thryduulf 08:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Request to unprotect: Therianthropy

This article was protected yesterday (August 3) after a brief flurry of edit warring. I'd been trying to sort the situation out and would have preferred simply enforcing 3RR since it was mainly just two users, and was standing ready to try shepherding discussion on talk:, but it appears I'm too "involved" to simply unprotect the article myself - I made one edit on the 2nd that was related to the subject of the dispute and I was involved in the discussion on talk: already. So, I request that someone else do it. The argument was over just a couple of word choices, I don't think the kerfuffle is too big to contain otherwise. Bryan 00:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll unprotect this. SlimVirgin 00:35, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Gah, this is so confusing. I thought I'd wandered into some sort of philosophical policy minefield, and now you just come along and agree with me after all my backpedalling and careful stepping? Can't we argue about it first? :) Bryan 00:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I think we can skip the argument stage. ;-) As you're keeping an eye on the article, the reverting will hopefully stop now. If it becomes problematic again, give me a shout. Nice article about you, by the way. I just finished reading it. SlimVirgin 00:44, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm still rather hesitant to wield a 3RR stick right now, but I'll do what I can with just my wit and charm (I'm also going to be out of the house for about an hour soon, but don't tell anyone). As for the article, thanks - I'd been hoping that fame would go to my head more than it apparently has, but I still find it kind of neat :) Bryan 00:57, 5 August 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)

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)
    • I agree this has settled down. Request withdrawn. Thryduulf 00:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

If You Leave Me Now

This is basically a revert war in progress. I thought the person had lost interest but they started up again today. I suspect that the same anonymous user is the one who keeps inserting the same editorial line at the end of the article. The IP addresses are not the same, but very similar. If this were a registered user I would be more than happy to take it to their talk page. I've already reverted twice today. Request a proteciton of the page, but without the editorial comment included at the end. An example is http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=If_You_Leave_Me_Now&oldid=20196135. I also suggest banning the IP range of 211.24.65-70 if possible. --Cholmes75 16:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Protected, don't really see a reason to block the IP range, only a mild annoyance if anything. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 19:54, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

That's cool. Thanks much! --Cholmes75 20:15, 3 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I've protected the article, with the intent to unprotect in 24 hours. Carbonite | Talk 14:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

• protected. Thryduulf 16:35, 23 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)

personal attacks and irrelevant discussion removed. I quote from the top of the page: "This is not the place to discuss or dispute articles, users, or policies.

For the record, admins do not have access to the IP addresses used by logged in users. This facility is available only to developers and those who have been given permission to use teh m:check user utility - I believe this latter is only user:Tim Starling and user:David Gerard on the English wikipedia. Thryduulf 16:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Issues appear to have been mostly resloved in talk talk:Massacre at HueTDC 17:08, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Outstanding issues remain, but TDC has been exceptionally reasonable in working towards concensus thus far. 165.247.214.66 17:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• Any chance the article is going to be un protected any time soon? TDC 19:44, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

• We're close to agreement on the intro, but do you anticipate more wars over the rest of the article? There are differences between the latest two revisions that we haven't addressed. 209.86.1.211 03:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• You appear to be engaged in productive dialoge, so I have unprotected it but please continue the dialoge rather than reverting each other. You might find a {{controversial}} tag beneficial if other editors start altering your agreed versions. Thryduulf 00:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Rob Liefeld

Troll edits will not stop, Troll continues to edit his POV into text over and over and over. More than 20 times since joining Misplaced Pages. This anonymous editor admits on talk page that he is writing perceived majority opinion into article as fact.--Timrock 21:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Tamazgha

The article appears to have become a recent target for a lot of vandalism. --Mysidia 18:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC)