Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:51, 17 November 2005

• ]

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

If you would like to request a page be protected or unprotected, please list it (and sign the request) at the top of the current requests section below, with the reason that it needs protecting or unprotecting. 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 fullfilled or rejected a request, please note your actions (or reasons for not acting) and, optionally, remove the request Leaving a note on the talk page of the article and/or on the talk page of the user(s) requesting protection might be good, as well.

Current requests for protection

Please place new requests at the top.

Republic of Macedonia

The page will undoubtedly be a continued source of biased, nationalistic edits, just like one I had to remove a moment ago. In its current form, the page is objective and respects the current naming dispute, and is of course useful for someone wanting fair information on the country, and shouldn't become an extension of an ongoing argument.Gorast 06:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The page is already protected against moves. I don't see a huge edit war over the last few days. Going to hold off for now. --Woohookitty 08:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Neuro-linguistic programming

Persistent edit warring and POV pushing involving several editors. Mediation appears to be ineffective. Arbitration has been requested, however, the request for arbitration appears to have incensed some editors to push their POV even more. I think a page lock would cool things off until arbcom can accept or reject the request for arbitration. FuelWagon 05:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Protected. Will unprotect once things cool off. -Mysekurity 05:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Phish

Persistent reversion of page by one user plus probable sockpuppets, to a previous version, despite consensus for need for cleanup. Tearlach 01:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Protected, and I've left a message on the IP user's talk page to come discuss the changes he's seeking. · Katefan0 01:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Lex Luger

Persistent, juvenile vandalism from several anonymous editors. McPhail 19:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Protected. · Katefan0 01:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Company

The {{Infobox Company}} template is used in more than 1,120 articles. The current template, layout and variables, should be considered stable given the lack of revolutionary activity. In order to prevent costly tampering of one of the most popular and widely used templates in Misplaced Pages, I recommend the template be permanently locked — at least, until a consensus is reached for administration of significant changes to the template. The version of the template that should be protected is this version Thank you. Adraeus 16:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Please reach an agreement with the other editor, and stop edit warring. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, please don't label edits as "vandalism" when they are not. Thanks. --Woohookitty 12:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Bogdanov Affair (again)

Sorry, folks, but he (Igor Bogdanov, one of the subjects of the article) continues to repeatedly vandalize the article. This time he is spoofing WP admins like G-man or Snowspinner (and earlier Fred Bauder). Again, why not protect the article for a while, unprotect it for a short period of time allowing for legitimate edits (and more vandalism from the subject of the article), clean out the vandalism and POV edits, and reprotect it for another period of time? Protecting this article from the tenatious and repeated vandalism of Igor Bogdanov is very costly in hours of time of the admins and legitimate editors of Misplaced Pages. I realize that WP likes to keep the articles in an editiable state, but we first need to ride this out, so that the subject of the article (who is clearly a narcissist and doesn't like to read unflattering facts about himself, and is also banned from WP) might evenutally go away. r b-j 19:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

OK done, it should probably be left protected for a week this time. G-Man 19:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with a week-long vandalism protection - vprotects should never be that long. Phil Sandifer 23:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Have you seen the edit history?. These guys dont give up. G-Man 01:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

If they don't give up then protection is inappropriate. Use reversion instead, to enable editing to proceed. I've unprotected as it's already been protected for about two days. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Bagrationi

Assorted edit wars between Georgian nationalists and anyone else who wanders by. Recent features include repeated removal of the dispute tag, despite the fact that there's rather clearly a dispute. The problem is unlikely to go away given that one participant declared "I WILL REMOVE DISPUTE TAGS". Isomorphic 05:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Not going to do anything for now. If this goes back to where it was, let us know. --Woohookitty 10:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

It's back to where it is. I will protect it. --Woohookitty 12:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Democracy & Nature

I've copied a very longwinded justification of one side of the content dispute from her to Talk:Democracy & Nature as it doesn't really seem to belong here. I hope the disputants will come back when they've made up their minds what they want. On the face of it there doesn't seem to be a good reason to protect the article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear administrators, I notice that since November 11th the D&N page has remained virtually unchanged with some minor improvements for which the administrators and other users should be thanked. The essence of the dispute was concentrated, at the end, on whether two members of the IAB (Bookchin and Castoriadis) should have special treatment with separate paragraphs dedicated to them, as opposed to the simple mentioning of the names of the rest. It seemed clear to everybody that both for reasons of principle (it is not right to discriminate in favour of two members just because a biased user thinks so) and for reasons of historical accuracy aptly exposed by the founder of the journal at:

there should simply be a list of names of all the IAB members. However, the biased user with the pseudonym Paul Cardan reappeared today and returned the disputed paragraphs. I therefore think that unless the administrators can produce a satisfactory explanation as to why the historical reasons and reasons of principle mentioned should be ignored, the page should be protected in the form it was finalised by SarekOfVulcan 15:59, 15 November 2005 User: Teo

Current requests for unprotection

Please place new requests at the top.

Eddie Guerrero

I'm not sure how long a page is protected after people are temporarily blocked from editing the page, but could that page be unprotected? The info being added after it was locked has been erroneous. OutRider2003 02:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I will unlock it, but I will put it on my watchlist. If it needs to be reprotected, please leave a message on my talk page. Thanks. --Woohookitty 08:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree... The wrestler "Superstar" Billy Graham performing Eddie's funeral service??? Hadn't this guy heard of the great evangelist Billy Graham...? Sorry but that's laughable...

George W. Bush

Should Misplaced Pages's highest-profile article be protected? The vandalism isn't THAT big of a deal. Does Misplaced Pages stand for nothing? Matt Yeager 23:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC) Excuse, me but why should every other article except this one be allowed protection. You hypocritical left-wingers make no sense.. you'd be up in arms if it was your precious John Kerry's article... or abortion rights for lesbians...

Unprotected. But as a matter of historical fact I think you'll find if you check that this article is seldom protected, although it is one of the most heavily vandalised. It's an article that attracts a lot of vandalism, but it's also on many watchlists. See m:Protected pages considered harmful. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

User_talk:BigDaddy777

This page should use a different protection template; right now a talk page is telling people to go to the talk page's talk page to resolve a dispute on the talk page. And, yes, clicking on "discussion page" gets one to User_talk_talk:BigDaddy777. Sort of like that 80s English band.  :) Maybe Template:vprotect would work better, especially if BigDaddy777 or others are vandalizing the page in question. Samboy 05:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you. I'll change the tag to the rarely used protection tag that says why the page is being protected. And I'll remove the talk talk page. Otherwise, we would then need to protect THAT page and could end up with multiple talk talk pages. --Woohookitty 08:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)