| Revision as of 05:21, 30 November 2006 view sourceMasamage (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users16,788 edits →Current requests for protection← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:05, 30 November 2006 view source Miracleimpulse (talk | contribs)481 edits →{{la|Sweetest Day}}: commentNext edit → | ||
| Line 95: | Line 95: | ||
| :::::These editors are maintaining the Sweetest Day article as a promotional tool for industry. Sorry, I thought Misplaced Pages was an encyclopedia. My mistake. ] 02:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | :::::These editors are maintaining the Sweetest Day article as a promotional tool for industry. Sorry, I thought Misplaced Pages was an encyclopedia. My mistake. ] 02:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::For the record, I have no connection to, nor do I care about, the industry surrounding Sweetest Day. ] 03:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | ::::::For the record, I have no connection to, nor do I care about, the industry surrounding Sweetest Day. ] 03:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
| * What has been happening on the ] page is the most highly deceptive form ] possible. It has really opened my eyes to the ] issues facing Misplaced Pages. Just read to see what images and '''facts''' are being edited out of the article. Keep in mind that many of the "grainy images" have news articles attached to them, news articles which clearly demonstrate how Sweetest Day really began. Industry is using Misplaced Pages to rewrite America's history in order to sell products. Not very encyclopedic, in my opinion. Again, please protect and allow a truly encyclopedic and comprehensive article about Sweetest Day to be created on Misplaced Pages. Improved quality images are on the way. ] 06:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===={{la|ECW December to Dismember}}==== | ===={{la|ECW December to Dismember}}==== | ||
Revision as of 06:05, 30 November 2006
| Noticeboards | |
|---|---|
| Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
| General | |
| Articles, content | |
| Page handling | |
| User conduct | |
| Other | |
| Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards | |
| Welcome—request protection of a page, file, or template here. | ||
|---|---|---|
|
Shortcuts
Before requesting, read the protection policy. Full protection is used to stop edit warring between multiple users or to prevent vandalism to high-risk templates; semi-protection and pending changes are usually used to prevent IP and new user vandalism (see the rough guide to semi-protection); and move protection is used to stop pagemove revert wars. Extended confirmed protection is used where semi-protection has proved insufficient (see the rough guide to extended confirmed protection) After a page has been protected, it is listed in the page history and logs with a short rationale, and the article is listed on Special:Protectedpages. In the case of full protection due to edit warring, admins should not revert to specific versions of the page, except to get rid of obvious vandalism.
Request unprotection of a page, or reducing the protection level Request unprotection Request a specific edit to a protected page Please request an edit directly on the protected page's talk page before posting here Request edit | ||
 Archives |
|
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 |
Current requests for protection
Place requests for new or upgrading of article protection, upload protection, or create protection at the BOTTOM of this section. Check the archive of fulfilled and denied requests or, failing that, the page history if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.
Plate tectonics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
It's nearing the end of a school term, and this article is getting a lot of extremely bitter visitors. There's been enough disruption that it could stand to be semi-protected until people get over it. --Masamage 05:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Steroids (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
It seems that this page has been vandalized more frequently than other chemicals because it is a class of chemicals associated with sex and doping (sport). --Kupirijo 04:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Subway (restaurant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi protection Some major major vandalism has hit this page over the last few days, maybe a week, including the line IF YOU'RE DOING A REPORT ON SUBWAY YOU SHOULD PROBABLY STOP READING THIS ARTICLE RIGHT NOW BECAUSE WE MESSED IT UP. I tried looking the the edit histories, but I can't figure out the real edits from the vandalism, maybe it should be protected until someone who knows something about it gets a chance to get on it.«»bd( stalk) 04:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Cuban Missile Crisis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi protection This article is prone to vandalism by anonymous users. In the last three days, only one change has not been reverted as vandalism. -- Beardo 03:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Toyotomi Hideyoshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Full Protection Continuous vandalism from User:NekoNekoTeacher and his obvious anonymous IP's. Korealist 00:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Kofun period (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Full Protection Continuous vandalism from User:NekoNekoTeacher and his obvious anonymous IP's. Korealist 00:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Current requests for unprotection
ShortcutsBefore posting, first discuss with the protecting admin on their talk page. Post below only if you receive no reply.
- To find out the username of the admin who protected the page, click on "history" at the top of the page, then click on "View logs for this page," which is under the title of the page. The protecting admin is the username in blue before the words "protected", "changed protection level" or "pending changes". If there are a number of entries on the log page, you might find it easier to select "Protection log" or "Pending changes log" from the dropdown menu in the blue box.
- Requests to downgrade full protection to template protection on templates and modules can be directed straight here; you do not need to ask the protecting admin first.
- Requests for removing create protection on redlinked articles are generally assisted by having a draft version of the intended article prepared beforehand.
- If you want to make spelling corrections or add uncontroversial information to a protected page, please add {{Edit fully-protected}} to the article's talk page, along with an explanation of what you want to add to the page. If the talk page is protected, please use the section below.
Check the archives if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.
Current requests for significant edits to a protected page
ShortcutIdeally, requests should be made on the article talk page rather than here.
- Unless the talk page itself is protected, you may instead add the appropriate template among
{{Edit protected}},{{Edit template-protected}},{{Edit extended-protected}}, or{{Edit semi-protected}}to the article's talk page if you would like to make a change rather than requesting it here. Doing so will automatically place the page in the appropriate category for the request to be reviewed. - Where requests are made due to the editor having a conflict of interest (COI; see Misplaced Pages:Suggestions for COI compliance), the
{{Edit COI}}template should be used. - Requests to move move-protected pages should be made at Misplaced Pages:Requested moves, not here.
- If the discussion page and the article are both protected preventing you from making an edit request, this page is the right place to make that request. Please see the top of this page for instructions on how to post requests.
- This page is not for continuing or starting discussions regarding content should both an article and its discussion page be protected. Please make a request only if you have a specific edit you wish to make.
Breast implant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Last night I requested that the Breast Implant article be unprotected because the protected version is NPOV and contains numerous factual errors. The protected version was drastically revised by a plastic surgeon who deleted almost any mention of implant problems, even from peer-reviewed published research and FDA regulatory guidelines. The protected version also includes promotional web sites where plastic surgeons pay to be listed -- thus turning this article into unpaid advertisements for specific doctors.
I explained several of the errors, omisions, and problems on the Discussion page. Several readers agreed with me. At one point the article was unprotected and someone (not me) reverted it back to a better version of the article that I had worked on. Success! Several people agreed with the new, more accurate version, including 2 doctors, a public health professional, and others who didn't identify their expertise.
Then a little while later, it was reverted back to the inaccurate, biased version and protected by Samir, a monitor (I think) who tells us to "duke it out." Of course, we can't duke it out, because the plastic surgeon who wrote the current version is happy that it is protected and has no incentive to compromise. He won't listen to reason, even when we give him direct quotes from the articles he has cited incorrectly.
I'm also confused by the notion of "duking it out." This is a medical article, not a movie review. If a statement is factually untrue it should be corrected regardless of how many people think the statement is accurate and how good they are at duking it out.
As a former faculty member at Yale and Vassar, and current director of a research institute, I have published on this issue and other health issues. I would be glad to explain every edit that needs to be made. Can you help me to improve the article and then protect it from future vandalism? Misplaced Pages will lose good editors if their hard work is ignored and they are told to "duke it out." 72.75.6.148 00:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- This page was protected after the following series of reversions over a 24 hour period: , , , , , , , , . I think discussion needs to take place here. Even a casual glance at Talk:Breast implant and the numerous ad hominem attacks against myself for protecting this page will show that "duking it out" is an apt synopsis of what's going on at that article -- Samir धर्म 03:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Fulfilled/denied requests
Francesco Patrizi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Protection Unsupported nationalistic edits by User:Factanista. This user inisist to inpose Nationalistic POV in several Dalmatia related article. --Giovanni Giove 13:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
User(s) blocked.. Edit warring users blocked by another admin. -- Steel 22:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Gracenote (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Severe edit war. Was semi-protected for a while, which effectively only stopped one side of the edit war. A mediation request has been filed, but not responded to. ~ ONUnicorn 22:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Declined. There hasn't been much protection-requiring warring for a few days. Re-request if it starts up again. -- Steel 22:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Whitty Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lots of previous vandalism --YoungBean 21:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. -- Steel 21:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Motorola RAZR V3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Full protection The article is already semi-protected because of a user repeatedly spamming modding links. Said individual has indicated that he will continue adding said links, and has registered an account to get around semi-protection. EASports 03:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Wouldn't banning the account then be the better action? -Amarkov edits 03:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- He's already gone through three or four anon. IPs; I wouldn't expect a name ban to slow him down very much. EASports 03:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Leonardo da Vinci (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-protection the article is constantly attacked by anonymous IP vandals.¤~Persian Poet Gal 02:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Sweetest Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Protection The Sweetest Day article is under seige by anonymous editors who are removing content. Please protect all images linked to the Sweetest Day page through these photos: . Thank you. Miracleimpulse 23:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Just a sidenote, this looks more like an edit war. Anom8trw8 00:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- It's sophisticated vandalism disguised as an edit war. Miracleimpulse 00:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- No, this is one editor refusing to acknowledge that consensus is against him. There is no reason to protect this.--Isotope23 01:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Agree with Isotope. See also Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Sweetest Day Hoax for more history. Not a dog 01:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- These editors are maintaining the Sweetest Day article as a promotional tool for industry. Sorry, I thought Misplaced Pages was an encyclopedia. My mistake. Miracleimpulse 02:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- For the record, I have no connection to, nor do I care about, the industry surrounding Sweetest Day. Not a dog 03:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- These editors are maintaining the Sweetest Day article as a promotional tool for industry. Sorry, I thought Misplaced Pages was an encyclopedia. My mistake. Miracleimpulse 02:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Agree with Isotope. See also Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Sweetest Day Hoax for more history. Not a dog 01:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- No, this is one editor refusing to acknowledge that consensus is against him. There is no reason to protect this.--Isotope23 01:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- It's sophisticated vandalism disguised as an edit war. Miracleimpulse 00:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- What has been happening on the Sweetest Day page is the most highly deceptive form vandalism possible. It has really opened my eyes to the credibility issues facing Misplaced Pages. Just read this edit to see what images and facts are being edited out of the article. Keep in mind that many of the "grainy images" have news articles attached to them, news articles which clearly demonstrate how Sweetest Day really began. Industry is using Misplaced Pages to rewrite America's history in order to sell products. Not very encyclopedic, in my opinion. Again, please protect this edit and allow a truly encyclopedic and comprehensive article about Sweetest Day to be created on Misplaced Pages. Improved quality images are on the way. Miracleimpulse 06:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
ECW December to Dismember (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-Protection For the same reason as WWE Armageddon. This happens with just about every WWE PPV. TJ Spyke 01:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Nishkid64 01:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Westboro Baptist Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-Protection Continuous vandalism from different IP addresses. - Mike Beckham 00:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Nishkid64 01:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Lady Sovereign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-Protection Already had to re-create the page once. Very heavy vandalism, mostly done by random IPs. Anom8trw8 00:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Nishkid64 01:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Spinosaurus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-Protection - This is my first request ever, so sorry if I get the formatting wrong. This article has been a reverting zone between a few (or possibly one editor using many) ip addresses & a few new users, & experienced editors who are frequent on the dinosaur scene, such as User:Firsfron. I'm requesting a semi-protection as the constant addition of wrong information to the Spinosaurus article is tiresome to constantly revert & is harmful to the article. The editors who are writing the article are experienced in the field of dinosaurs, and have sources. Although the "vandalism" (if you could call it that) has been happeneing in a speradic fashion over a length of time, the ip address's hinderance is becoming an annoyance. It is also confusing newer editors who have seen the page's numerous different editions of information (re: Spinosaurus talk). Anyway, I'll support what ever descision the admin makes that closes this request. Thanks, Spawn Man 00:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Nishkid64 01:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Asuka period (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Full Protection Continuous vandalism from User:NekoNekoTeacher and his obvious anonymous IP's. Korealist 00:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- I think a block of the user would be better... Erm, am I allowed to say anything on this page? Spawn Man 01:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Ummm... Why is this in this section? I'm not an admin, so I can't block anyone or protect anything lol... ? Spawn Man 01:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
WWE Armageddon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-Protection The same thing that happens with almost every WWE PPV article starting a few weeks before the event, anon IP's and new users keep adding in rumored matches and matches announced during TV tapings despite the fact that there always a warning there saying not to add in matches that haven't been announced on TV or the companie's website. TJ Spyke 00:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Blood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-protection Consistent anonymous vandalism Ansell 00:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Nishkid64 00:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Edgar Allen Poe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
SemiProtection - heavy vandalism. Patstuart 00:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Nishkid64 00:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Women (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
semi-protect.lots of sexist/misogynist vandalism from ips.The Pink Panther 23:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Nishkid64 00:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Richard Dawkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Per this thread on talk. Mikker 20:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Un-protected. It's been protected for long enough. Hopefully things have calmed down since then. Nishkid64 21:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
South Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm a student at Texas A&M - Corpus Christi and am doing a project about wikipedia and am in need of putting up some useful information that is left out about Aids in South Africa. However I'm unable to do so because of the block. So I was hoping that I could get access into this article for editing.
Unprotected --Robdurbar 19:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Automobiles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am a student at Texas A&M Corpus Christi, and I am doing a project for my Compsition class. I want to inform you that I have no disputes with this topic and simply need to use the Misplaced Pages site for a presentation on Thursday, November 30, 2006.
- Not unprotected. I presume you mean automobile? I don't see why you would need that unprotected to do a presentation anyway - you can still view the source text. --Robdurbar 19:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
September 11, 2001 attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-protect: Article just came out from under full protection this morning and the edit wars are already starting up again. At this point the biggest headache seems to be from anons, some of which are spamming the Village Pump as well. Hopefully a sprot can keep the worst under control. The logged in editors are at least doing more debating than editing at the moment. --StuffOfInterest 21:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- I think semi-protection is enough for now. The article was semi-protected since Oct 31 due to heavy vandalism from anons and new users and will prevent people from circumventing 3RR and blocks by editing from IPs. --Aude (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- I've upped this from sprotect, registered users are warring quite a bit too. -- Steel 21:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Darfur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-protect: Only edits are vandalism by anon. Since last protect and the protect before, most edits have been vandalism and reverting vandalism. --Chrisdab 21:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- I think the vandalism levels at the moment are tolerable. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Nishkid64 21:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Jaws (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-protect: Today's featured article is currently under a sustained campaign of vandalism (including racist statements eg. "Fuck Niggers" in size 50 font at the top of the page), with malicious edits occuring every couple of minutes and having to be reverted. Tjis has gone on for at least half an hour. If it was briefly semi-protected they would probably go away. Apparently it has been semi-protected already today, and someone rmeoved the protection on the ground that aparently we don't or shouldn't protect the FA of the day, but this is making Misplaced Pages look bad, and would be a more effective response than maintaining a constant vigil just on the off-chance that somebody has a constructive edit to make in the next hour, among the dozens of attacks. Richard75 20:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Declined. WP:NOPRO. -- Steel 20:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Featured content (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
SProtect - I asked preemptively a few days ago (just after it had been added to Mediawiki sidebar (under Community Portal)) but it was denied. Well now there's 3 days worth of reverting anon's tests - it's a pure template-layout page, and shouldn't require any editing. Please perma-semi-protect, thanks :) -Quiddity 20:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)