Misplaced Pages

:Requests for page protection: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:25, 2 March 2006 view sourceKatefan0 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users13,081 edits →{{la|Hello}}: no← Previous edit Revision as of 19:26, 2 March 2006 view source Katefan0 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users13,081 edits →{{la|Great Depression}}: yesNext edit →
Line 51: Line 51:
=== {{la|Great Depression}} === === {{la|Great Depression}} ===
] and ] are committing repeated acts of vandalism. Over 50 acts of vandalism in the past two hours to this point, and they have been listed as vandalizing numerous times in the past couple of weeks. Please help. --] 18:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC) ] and ] are committing repeated acts of vandalism. Over 50 acts of vandalism in the past two hours to this point, and they have been listed as vandalizing numerous times in the past couple of weeks. Please help. --] 18:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
:Yikes. Insane amounts of vandalism. Probably kids. Semiprotected for now. &middot; ]<sup>]</sup>/<small>]</small> 19:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


=== {{la|Hello}} === === {{la|Hello}} ===

Revision as of 19:26, 2 March 2006

server cache Shortcut
  • ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is not the place to discuss or dispute articles, users, or policies.

If the entry is being used for edit-warring or content disputes or contains personal attacks or uncivil comments, or any other unrelated discussion, it will be removed from this page immediately.

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

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.

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

How to list page

Note: Always use === headings. Do not use ; or : or ==.

Namespace Link to page Link to talk page
Generic {{ln|NAMESPACE|PAGE NAME}} {{lnt|NAMESPACE|PAGE NAME}}
Article {{la|ARTICLE}} {{lat|ARTICLE}}
Template {{lt|TEMPLATE}} {{ltt|TEMPLATE}}
Misplaced Pages {{lw|PAGE}} {{lwt|PAGE}}
User {{lu|PAGE}} {{lut|PAGE}}
Category {{lc|PAGE}} {{lct|PAGE}}
Image {{li|IMAGE}} {{lit|IMAGE}}

Current requests for protection

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

User:70.158.81.251 and User:64.88.21.21 are committing repeated acts of vandalism. Over 50 acts of vandalism in the past two hours to this point, and they have been listed as vandalizing numerous times in the past couple of weeks. Please help. --Kitch 18:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yikes. Insane amounts of vandalism. Probably kids. Semiprotected for now. · Katefan0/poll 19:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

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

This article is under constant attack from vandals. I count 14 different vandals in the recent couple of weeks. I would propose Semi-protection as it is always anon's that vandalise. -Localzuk 17:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Not enough vandalism for semiprotection. Just revert, as annoying as it is. · Katefan0/poll 19:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Otto von Bismarck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page has been vandalized by IP-users MANY times. I just reverted 9 edits by two different IP-addresses some minutes ago. As I see no vandalizing contributions by reged users and at the sime time no constructive contributions by IP-users, I think this page should definatly be semi-protected. --BSI 10:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Isolated cases so far. Several vandalistic edits in a row do not chronic vandalism make. I will check back later though. --Ryan Delaney 14:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Objectivism and homosexuality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

LaszloWalrus has declared an edit war on this article. He has launched edit wars before to defend Ayn Rand, as he is strongly partisan in support of hiding anything about her that might be considered negative.

He recently edit-warred on Ayn Rand, which is why he was blocked and the page has been (and remains) Protected. Now that he noticed activity on this article, he wiped out some paragraphs and censored others, on the general notion that anything he considers hostile towards Rand -- no matter how true and cited -- is POV.

He won't Talk about it or explain precisely why he thinks these sections are POV. Instead, he has recruited a fellow defender of Rand, Billyjoekoepsel, with the stated goal of starting an edit war so he can game the system and get me banned for 3RR violation. I've left CIVIL and 3RR warnings on both their pages, but they have not responded.

To prevent the edit war before it begins and force these two people to sit down at the table and justifiy their deletions, I am requesting a Protect. I do realize that this will most likely lock the article into the censored version, but there's nothing I can do about that.

If you agree to Protect this page, I will need your guidance on how to proceed, as I fully expect them to be uncooperative and consistently vote as a block against anything I say. Alienus 05:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see much of an edit war here. Further, most of their edits look reasonable: etc. I'm no fan of Ayn Rand or Objectivism, but this doesn't seem to merit protection. --Ryan Delaney 14:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, given the fact that (1) all of their changes have involved removing or censoring true and cited text, (2) they steadfastly refuse to Talk, (3) I'm one revert away from a 3RR and (4) they're gaming to get me blocked, I think you've made the wrong call.

As per the wikirules, I've made a good-faith attempt to avert any sort of edit war. In the meantime, one of them has already made a bad-faith attempt to get me blocked. For now, rather than reverting their changed outright, I'm going to repair the worst of them, one at a time. This will, of course, lead to an edit war. I fully expect to be reported for 3RR violation sometime today. When this happens, I'm going to direct the admin who blocks me to look here and see that all this was avoidable. What I expect is that I'll be blocked but they won't be, giving them free reign to vandalize the article some more.

Woodridge, Illinois (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

article. 124.173.96.35 04:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

No where near enough recent edits to protect. Just revert.Voice-of-All 04:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes,You are fairly gay due to the recent events, but this has been going on for a fairly long time now, and it's the same type of edits every couple weeks. I'm sick of reverting it, so I'm not going to do it anymore. Almost nobody else watches that page, so I suspect the next racist (and flat-out factually wrong) edit will stand for quite some time. 134.173.95.35 09:30, 2 March 2006 (UT

List of Anti-Masons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-stop edit warring by MSJapan and WWMrgn over the past few days, with almost no talk page activity between these two users. --TML1988 04:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Protected due to edit war.Voice-of-All 04:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Jordanhill railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

See this as a requst for semi-protection if it gets vandalized. This is more as a premature future investigation request. At least add it to your watchlist. There hasn't been any sever vandalism yet. →AzaToth 01:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

A block was made, and some new ones may be needed. For now, I will just watchlist.Voice-of-All 02:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Yahya01 has been consistently (28 times in 24 hours!) been editing and reverting all changes to this page and inserting his biased and totally inaccurate views into the article. This is tantamount to vandalism. He has not sought any consensus or discussion, but has continued to insert his bigoted baseless biased and incorrect edits into the article, despite the fact that wikipedians have reverted his vandalism several times. we are getting quite tired of this all. Please intervene and revert the article back to either the versions by Tanzeel, Siddiqui or Grenavitar and protect the page, or block Yahya01. Thanks. (Tanzeel 20:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC))

Protected. Both of you need to read WP:3rr, and consider this your notification (and his). At any rate, this has been going on for to long; you people need to comprimise on wich wording you want ("influential philospher" and/or "militant"). I reverted the last edit that was used to game 3RR and was not the version before the edit war, mispelled words, used weasal terms and gave no sources and had too much of an agenda to be exceptable. Either way, the use of the word "militant" is a reasonable dispute as far as I can tell, so again, work it out on talk. If you cant, file an RfC.Voice-of-All 02:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Rapid application development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A not-logged-in vandal has been repeatedly deleting the majority of the page and replacing it with nonsense or complaints. Please semi-protect it. --David.alex.lamb 17:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The vandal has been blocked, so we need not semi-protect.Voice-of-All 02:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Al-Khwarizmi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Avicenna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Al-Biruni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There has been an ongoing edit war between a large number of editors the last couple of days. I will try to mediate, but don't have the time right now and I believe it would be best to have things cool down for a couple of days anyway. —Ruud 16:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Al-Khwarizmi and al-Biruni have been protected.Voice-of-All 17:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

California State Highway 17 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:SPUI has begun again his unilateral campaign to move this article to a title which is not what was agreed-upon by consensus on the talk page. Please protect the page from being moved, and please make sure it is at the agreed-upon name "California State Highway 17" before protecting it. Nohat 05:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Well it's being debated, but consensus is needed for a page move. But since I'm biased, I can't help although I'm an admin. Add the redirects too. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

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

I've received a protection request from one of the involved parties in the dispute, and I'm inclined to grant it (the conflict looks pretty entrenched right now) but wouldn't mind someone else taking a look at the situation as well. (ESkog) 04:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Can we at least get this page semi-protected? Please look at the article's history. Lots of vandalism and edit wars. Aucaman 09:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Aucaman constantly breaks the 3RR rule on Persians, abusing the dispute system, and pushing his point of view, despite the majority's disapproval of his actions on Talk:Persian_people. Please either have him blocked from that page or protect the page from his vandalism until further notice. --ManiF 09:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
The page has been protected by KnowledgeOfSelf (talk · contribs). (ESkog) 12:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Shiloh Shepherd Dog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User conduct disputes involving an external controversy affecting this article are the subject of an arbitration proceeding. Two of the parties to this arbitration appear to be about to start revert warring. Page protection may be necessary until the arbitration is completed. Robert McClenon 23:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

protected. That's a lot of hostility and revert warring over one image. KillerChihuahua 00:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

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

Requesting this website to be revised, reviewed and rewritten by the Misplaced Pages experts, and than protected. It's beeing constantly tagged and just flooded by unaccurate, rasist, ethincly discriminating and hateful edits by anonimous persons in the eve of Kosovo talks. I know that it's a political question but I just plead for accurate and evidential article that this one is surely not. It's been going on for several weeks now, and it has turned into a virtual internet edit-war, highly targeting and vandalising Kosovo Serb population. I think that at least on the internet non-ALbanians in this article should be spared of discrimination, because in real life situation for them is the hardest than it has ever been during the last 1400 years. Please send someone qualified to rewrite this article or at least put it the way it was until just a while ago, when this fight began! Than I suggest you protect it so that nobody can just log on and simply rewrite history and facts!NeroN BG

Someone else has already protected. · Katefan0/poll 21:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I plan on reverting the article as it was until just a while ago, before the Internet clashes and violent modifications have taken place. The article cannot stay like this because it is written in a discriminatory, derogatory and rasist manner and should at least be objective as it was until 2 months ago, neither pro-Albanian nor pro-Serbian, but objective and honest. NeroN BG

I request unprotection for this article for the reasons I've listed below NeroN BG

Use the article's talk page to come to a consensus please. · Katefan0/poll 16:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

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

Constant attack from anon users (who vandalise 90% of the time at least). Please semi-protect.Gator (talk) 14:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Woohookitty 14:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Semi-protect please, it is geting at least half a dozen childish, petty vandalism from different always IP based editors every day and this wasn't happening before, just the last few days. It is not being well watched either, SqueakBox 14:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Protected. --Woohookitty 14:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


George Washington Carver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

For the past week (and longer) it's been constant anonymous vandalism. Short-term semi-protection requested. Cburnett 01:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. Should be brief though. --Woohookitty 06:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


Saint John Bosco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has been going back and forth over the last three days over whether or not the saint had homosexual and pederastic tendencies. The primary source is in Italian, and I feel that the proponent of adding the text is trying to advance a point of view, not neutral, with weak evidence. I am asking that the page be locked until something gets worked out. --evrik 03:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The page has not "been going back and forth", it has actually been very quiet while a workable solution was being elaborated on the talk page, and it seemed as though it had. The user requesting protection has chosen to not engage the discussion other than to suggest the material be taken elsewhere, which is against the rules. Now he is the one to revert three times in the space of a couple of hours and he is the one claiming need of protection??? Haiduc 03:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I just notice the warning against debating on this page. I have not been here before, please excuse, and delete if inappropriate. Haiduc 03:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
There appears to be a significant consensus already developed on the Talk page among many users. I don't really see what purpose protection would serve in furthering this consensus, other than frustrating the minority editor further. I won't protect this one, but other admins should feel free to overrule me if there's something I missed. (ESkog) 04:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
It is inappropriate for me to rule on this one as I have now begun discussing the situation at the content level and may thus be perceived as biased. (ESkog) 13:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • An update - The page has gone back and forth nine six times since I posted the request. I have posted here why the sources are bad and the page should remain without the disputed text until better documentation is provided. evrik 20:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    Article protected in response, though a 5-4 "consensus" is to weak and impercise (repeatable) to really be seen as a consensus. A landslide (or fairly close) or agreement to a comprimise is a consensus.Voice-of-All 03:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    Just to clarify...consensus seems to be improving, but it is not there yet. Some of the edit summaries suggest a 5-4 finality, and it does not work that way.Voice-of-All 04:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

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

I request protection for this article, as it is under attack and non-NPoV are added. Last NPoV version of by user YanYeoman. It was reverted back into non-NPoV by user Wikimol. It now looks like a regular hate page. I request revert back into YanYeoman version and protection. FerdinandH 00:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Not enough activity/vandalism to protect.Voice-of-All 02:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Current requests for unprotection

If you simply want to make spelling corrections or add information to a protected page that is not disputed, and you are not involved in any disputes there, consider simply adding {{Editprotected}} to the article's talk page, along with an explaination of what you want to add to the page.

Peter Ruckman

User Arbusto / Arbustoo is determined to undermine the value of what is clearly a legitimate reference point by any objective standard. His/her "edits" are frivolous, inconsistent, and based on pretended standards of writing (not to mention his/her very poor use of the language). The only person the page needs to be protected from is Arbusto / Arbustoo. To be fair, Arbusto/Arbustoo has one general line of defense: corrections of his edits are mean. User:GlimmTwin

User talk:DragonWR12LB (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

This user has protected material taken from my User Talk page, in violation of specific request that he not reprint from my page. I wish the material taken from my User Talk page, which I have deleted from my own page, deleted from this page.

Davidkevin 08:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Material removed, dispute resolved as far as I am concerned.
Davidkevin 09:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

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

This user page has been protected since 3 February 2005. I think the vandal has gone away by now... --Khoikhoi 05:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Millionth topic pool (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am not sure why this page was protected in the first place, as the only reason would be to prevent further guesses, and I don't see how the protection policy would justify this. Now that the millionth article milestone has been passed, the protection doesn't really have any use at all. --Constantine Evans 23:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The pool was closed and all new edits are moot regargless, so they just protect to prevent guessing, as you said. On the one hand I see little reason to edit, but on the other, I see little reason to protect. I would leave it for now...maybe we can unprotected in a few days, as most archived pages/AfDs are not protected.Voice-of-All 02:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The games ended Sunday, so it should be ok to unsemi. --waffle iron 00:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Jkelly 02:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

List of countries by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There was no edit war and there is no discussion about the protection. Most of the comments point to the direction of leaving things as they are now. --giandrea 19:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Woohookitty 05:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

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

This article was "protected" because one of the administrators' opinions conflicted with some of the NPOV facts on the page. Please allow productive edits.

Actually it was protected because you violated 3RR by using dynamic IPs to continually revert the article. --Woohookitty 06:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

David Quinn (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The vandalism has ended, particularly after I entered the fray and told my (well-meaning, but deranged) students to stop vandalizing wikipedia. Things have cooled down and I think its time to allow productive edits and corrections. Also, I think that the request for deletion should have ended by now, as it's apparent that most producive users and editors want the entry to remain. Peace! MidnightTOKer 20:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll give it 24 hours and then unprotect. --Woohookitty 06:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

James Scott Richardson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There was no "vandalism" in my attempt to edit out certain information. Administrator Homeontherange/Homey might be using page protection in order to stop edits on the website. Please read the discussions in the talk page for more information. If you look at the edits in detail, I was claiming two separate things for two separate edits. First of all, there is no source to show that James Scott Richardson made the claim attributed to him and the article (last 2 paragraphs) and that the October 3, 2001 article has no reference to Richardson making such a comment. The Paragraph describing a comment by Sgt. Anderson is also not sourced. Also, the second part of my dispute is that infromation about charges that were filed and withdrawn (without seeing a day in court) are being used to disparage the individual. If you read the talk page section about how there seems to be double-standards on behalf of Homeontherange/Homey, you will understand my dispute with that information being posted - he had previously reverted edits that were along the same guidelines. Thank you for your time. Imstillhere 05:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

None of this changes the fact that there is an edit war. The sources (and there is one) and notability are questioned by you, while "Homey" supports their inclusion. It is an edit conflict and an edit war. Discuss it, RfC it, request a 3rd opinions for consenus...but do not just request unprotection so that you two can go back to reverting each other.Voice-of-All 05:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
The edit war was brief and between 2 individuals. If you read through the history, these minor editting sessions have accomplished change in the article and therefore have not been disruptive. Aside from that comment I have 2 questions. what is RfC and how would I request a 3rd opinion for consensus? Imstillhere 05:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Good rule of thumb on here. If it's an abbreviation, try searching for WP: and then the abbreviation after it. So RfC is at WP:RfC. 3rd opinion is at WP:3O. Anyway, RfC is a request for comment. Similar to 3rd opinion. No reason not to use both. --Woohookitty 11:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Imstillhere was repeatedly removing sourced information, claiming it was unscoured, despite the fact that the source was mentioned several times in the article. He was either being obtuse or vandalizing. He has now, finally, admitted that the material he was removing is properly sourced. I hope this means the article can now be unprotected. I doubt Imstillhere would have been forced to prove his claim or back down had protection not been implemented. Homey 01:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

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

I plan on reverting the article as it was until just a while ago, before the Internet clashes and violent modifications have taken place. The article cannot stay like this because it is written in a discriminatory, derogatory and rasist manner and should at least be objective as it was until 2 months ago, neither pro-Albanian nor pro-Serbian, but objective and honest. NeroN BG

I request unprotection for this article for the reasons I've listed below NeroN BG

Use the article's talk page to come to a consensus please. · Katefan0/poll 16:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Current requests for edits to a protected page

Please demonstrate solid consensus for having an edit protected, such as giving a link to a talk page where a consensus was established for the proposed version, or where consensus that the current, protected, version contains highly questionable (per WP:V) or baised (per WP:NPOV) statements that should be removed.

Consider simply requesting that {{verifiy}}, {{Disputed}} or {{NPOV}} tags be added to the article's last state after being protected.

No article can be protected indefinetely, so an RfC or aribitration request may be required for a permanent solution.

If you simply want to make spelling corrections or add information to a protected page that is not disputed, and you are not involved in any disputes there, simply add {{Editprotected}} to the article's talk page, along with an explaination of what you want to add to the page.

Nazism in relation to other concepts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Request that this page be made a redirect to Fascism_and_ideology and protected for two weeks pending request for deletion after all links are relinked to new pages. This page was in the process of being divided up onto three other pages when one user objected. For some reason this page ended up being protected with much of the older and already moved text restored. To demonstrate that this was not really a content dispute but one user with a problem refusing to work with other editors, I posted a vote notice on numerous pages, and conducted a poll of where one disputed section (on Nazism and socialism) should be placed. The results of that poll are here. The user who disputed the move refused to take part in the poll. --Cberlet 16:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Ask Voice of All about it since he's the one that protected it. --Woohookitty 05:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I am unprotected the article as of now, as it has been a long while. Let the poll run for longer though. Other edits are fine, but restoring the redirect may not be a good idea until you get a few more votes and discussion (consensus). It takes a solid consensus and generally, uncooperative, behavoir on the part of the minority in order to have an edit protected.Voice-of-All 06:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
The uncooperative behavior of one and only one editor is the issue, and it has been going on for many months. I will leave the Nazism and socialism section on two pages for another week, but at what point is this simply ridiculous? The same text on two pages. A group of editors editing on one page, one editor reverting back the same text on a pet page. The text about Nazism and religion and Nazism and race has also been moved to new pages. I will trim those, provide links, and leave the Nazism and socialism section. That seems reasonable.--Cberlet 16:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
The behavoir is not very cooperative, yes. My main point was to wait until more people express support, as it is easy to rack a small "consensus" of editors. At this rate, it wont be long before the consensus is strong enough.Voice-of-All 16:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
It should be OK to redirect this at this point. Protection may not even be necessary.Voice-of-All 02:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

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

Discussion has arrisen to change the captions on some pictures on the Hitler article Adolf_Hitler#Early_adulthood_in_Vienna_and_Munich see The first image:

A watercolour by Adolf Hitler depicting Laon, France. After two rejected applications for admission to the Vienna Academy, Hitler was told he did have some talent for drawing buildings and it was suggested he study architecture instead.

The second image, the amberish landscape, could be captioned...

A landscape painted by Adolf Hitler.


Further there was a request to change categories from :suicides to :Politicians who committed suicide which was not contested

both changes are independant of the revert war that caused the page protection. Agathoclea 14:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd work out the edit war and then we'll deal with the rest. But if another admin disagrees with me, I will not complain. --Woohookitty 15:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Some noises on the talkpage suggest that there would be further editwaring (see the question about 6 Million Jews killed). The changes in the caption were formulated after it was realized that one of the captions is clearly POV and people not being able to make edits actually - surprise - were able to talk it out. Agathoclea 15:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
People seem to be in agreement here, and this is not related to edit war issues, so I added the edits.Voice-of-All 02:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)