Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BrokenSegue (talk | contribs) at 01:03, 4 May 2005 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• ]

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) 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.

After a page has been protected, it is listed on Misplaced Pages:Protected page with a short description of ten words or fewer indicating why it was protected. Further discussion should taked 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).

Please remove requests once they have been fulfilled or withdrawn.

Current requests

Please place new requests at the top.

Timothy McVeigh

A user who was banned for 48 hours for excessive violations of 3RR rule, impersonating an admin and then getting around his block by returning on a new IP address is now back to reverting Timothy McVeigh to a version that he is the only supporter of after it has been made clear that 15 or more different editors disagree with it. DreamGuy 11:25, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

DreamGuy was also blocked for violation of the 3RR. The original edit that DreamGuy did not agree with was the removeal of the term ¨terrorist¨ in a wholesale manner. It now says that he was convincted of terrorist acts by the US, which is more correct. Terrorist is a word to avoid as seen in Misplaced Pages:Words_to_avoid. I have tried discussing issues with DreamGuy, but he simply removes my comments on his talk page wholesale, just like he reverts my articles wholesale. I have asked him on several times to discuss the issue both on the discussion page or his talk page, but he refuses to. 66.194.152.87 11:41, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Anon user was actually asked by multiple editors to discuss the issue on the talk page long back but only just now decided to in order to make this claim here. Numerous editors reverted his statements and told him on his talk page and in edit comments to knock it off or discuss it on the talk page. You can see on my talk page where he first threatened to ban me and then falsely claimed I was blocked, leading to him being banned for impersonating an admin. His recent edits have been more of the same threats of blocking and claims that I was violating policy when it was in fact himself who is repeatedly breaking rules. DreamGuy 11:49, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

I did not threaten you with a ban. I warned you that your actions may get blocked and, true to my prediction, you were blocked. Furthermore, I was never blocked for pretending to be an admin since I never claimed to be an admin. 66.194.152.87 11:55, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

You said straight out that I was now blocked and was not allowed to edit, when in fact I had not been and you were just lying to try to scam me into not reverting your POV change. You were in the process of being blocked for that but got blocked for excessive 3rr rules before that happened. DreamGuy 12:01, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

It's protected now, but could we PLEASE have the page protected as it was in the consensus version and not the version as being pushed by the anon user (who has previously made edits to pages calling terrorist "martyrs")? It's bad enough that he's impersonated an admin, made false claims, and got around a block termporarily by switching to a different IP address, but if it stays protected in his version he will have won another victory against the editors who play by the rules and follow consensus. DreamGuy 12:01, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

I feel the major reason why DreamGuy refuses to negotiate is simply because he does want his block for his 3RR violation to be for nothing. I think any fair person reading both the current version and the version previous will agree that my version is more NPOV.66.194.152.87 12:07, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

All the people that reverted your edits last time around would strongly disagree, but there's no need to argue it here as that's what the talk page is for. DreamGuy 12:14, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

see m:The Wrong Version BrokenSegue 01:03, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Kosovo

Hipi Zhdripi (talk · contribs) wants the Kosovo article to focus on UNMIK and characterize Kosovo as a UN protectorate, while Nikola Smolenski (talk · contribs), Pokrajac (talk · contribs) and Ninam (talk · contribs) want to characterize it as a province of Serbia currently under the administration of the UN. They have two threads going and revert back and forth. Third party edits — mine — are getting lost in the reverts; I've had to apply the same edits (table formatting not related to the disputant's POVs) to both versions. User:Hipi Zhdripi has created a POV-Fork from a redirect for the other view — Kosovo i Metohija — which the others are not buying. Parties need to talk and the fork redirected again. — Davenbelle 00:07, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Another POV-Fork: Republic of Kosovo. — Davenbelle 17:10, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

I protected them all. This is pathetic- also aren't the forks in violation of GFDL? BrokenSegue 17:42, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Kosovo i Metohija && Republic of Kosovo should probably be redirects to Kosovo. I'm not sure about your license question, but the forks are obviously a bad idea. — Davenbelle 17:54, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Unprotect Republic of Kosovo

Please, uprotect this article and make redirect to Kosovo, or just delete this page, because there is no Republic of Kosovo. :) --M. Pokrajac 18:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Template:deletedpage

Since it's supposed to be added to protected pages (to protect against article recreation), it should also be protected. --cesarb 00:39, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't follow your logic. Template:Protected is supposed to be added to protected pages but it isn't protected. Do you think people will recreate the article on the template? BrokenSegue 00:52, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes. --cesarb 00:59, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

(Of course, if even Template:protected does not need protection, this one might not need it. Forget about this request. --cesarb 01:05, 2 May 2005 (UTC))

Unprotect Earth

There's no protection template, and no mention on talk of why it was protected. --SPUI (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Done. Mackensen (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Unprotect The Matrix

We may have a resolution to the Marxism/Matrix dispute. AndyL 16:40, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Done. BrokenSegue 16:46, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Abortion

User:SqueakBox persists in reverting a link on the abortion entry. It's a pro-life link to Bible verses on abortion in the external links section. He has broken the 3 revert rule. 12:14am, PST, May 1.

How could he be breaking the 3RR? He has only made four reverts in the past four days, though admittedly the last three were in the space of less than one hour (which is permitted, though I think it's a bit OTT). Well I had a look and it seems that you are having a bit of a ding-dong there, but it's probably better if you just have a bit of a chat instead of reverting one another. I don't think it's at a stage that requires protection yet. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Big hurt (talk · contribs) only reverted abortion 5 times, but as a result of his persistence his spam is remains in abortion. Who said breaking the rules does not help. I have reported him to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#Big Hurt but nothing has been done and he acts with complete impunity, reverting 5 times and attacking me anbd making faklse accusations into the bargain. Why do I bother? Why do Big Hurt's baseless and untrue allegations get investigated and my Revert proofs ignored? Why is he allowed 5RR and then to keep his spam? as the Bible has nothing to say on abortion, --SqueakBox 15:47, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

See response on WP:AN/3RR. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:00, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Power violence

User: 141.154.228.160 as well as other anons (probably all the same person) have repeatedly reverted this article back to a version that is clearly POV. Despite discussion on talk page they are determined to revert back to their version. Wikibofh 16:23, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Doesn't look like a big deal. It was only recently unprotected and it'd be a shame to protect again so soon. Just tell them to stop behaving like big jessies. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:31, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Brummagem

User:Nick Boulevard persists in reverting the article to remove anything he feels is "negative" about the the word "Brummagem". The material he is removing is consistent with the definition found in most dictionaries.--Andrew Norman 08:44, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Oh come on! He's done two edits since the end of January, both of them more than two weeks apart, and already you want the page protected? This is a straightforward content dispute and Nick is discussing his changes on the talk page and clearly not interested in edit warring at this stage. Sort it out amongst yourselves. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:36, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Brummie

User:Nick Boulevard persists in reverting the article to remove anything he feels is "negative" about the accent and dialect used by people from Birmimgham. Others feel the material he is removing is factual, NPOV, and simply reports on the widespread negative perception of the accent. Nick's method is to simply revert the article to his last edit, regardless of any material which might have been added since, rather than editing to remove contentious material and justifying his actions.--Andrew Norman 08:44, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

• A little more active than on Brummagem, but still no banana. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:38, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Yale University

Anon User:4.22x.x.x keeps deleting entire miscellaneous section, no discussion on talk page, only rationale given being edit summary saying "rm miscellany. for reasoning, read here." which links to MIT talk page saying "It appears that the section was added due to a misunderstanding by User:4.228.102.139 of the NPOV policy (he/she saw some irrelevant deaths added to the Yale University article and started adding deaths at other universities to their respective articles in order to be "fair")." Then to firther show his/her "reasonableness", he/she keeps calling me a vandal in the edit summary, for restoring it. Gzuckier 03:06, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Hasn't been edited at all since 29 April. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:41, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Robert Oppenheimer

This page is currently featured on the front page and is the victim of constant vandalism. Gblaz 14:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• We don't like to edit protect stuff that's linked from the front page--that would defeat the whole point of having a Wiki. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:42, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• Yeah we don't protect front page articles. I'll just add it to my watchlist. BrokenSegue 13:45, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Augusto Pinochet

Constant reverts over "gross" human rights violations and (oddly) the capitalization of political philosophies. Maybe protection will force dialogue. –Hajor 02:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Oh someone has been trying to remove the reference to Pinochet's human rights abuses on and off for months. It doesn't seem to be hampering editing at all. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:44, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Pablo Neruda

Long term dispute that needs to be put on ice of a while. Continual RV wars between multiple editors. TDC 02:16, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

• This dispute seems to have gone to sleep over the past week or so. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:47, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

David Dreier

User is removing an entire, multi-paragraph section of the article: Campaign 2004. I've listed the page on Requests for Comment and I'd like the page to be protected in order to avoid the edit war that's occurring. Moncrief 23:34, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Hasn't been edited since 27 April. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:48, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Pope Pius XII

Request for page protection on this page following repeated POV anon vandalism. reverted currently, I flagged a dispute (within article), put dispute into the discussion , locked the page incorrectly myself and now seek protection . I refer you to the linked page for the Centre Party Germany which deals with the substance and references to the same issue .Flamekeeper 07:24, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• No sign of any major disputes in the past week. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Old polls in Misplaced Pages namespace

Okay, I have a rather strange request... many pages in the Misplaced Pages namespace are obsolete, outdated or simply a straw poll that has closed a long time ago. It happens somewhat frequently that (particularly new) users see such a page, assume it's currently relevant, and for instance add their comments or votes - under the false understanding that they're making a useful contribution that will be noticed.

So would it be a suggestion to protect these pages? Any Misplaced Pages namespace page that is inactive and kept for reference or historical reasons (e.g. those tagged with Template:Historical) should arguably remain in its present state, and re-opening the discussion (if needed) should be done on a new page. Just like most bulletin boards have policies against 'thread necromancy' or 'bumping' a year-old thread to the forum top by responding to it.

Radiant_* 11:25, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

In a similar vein, what about articles that are entirely complete in themselves? I recommend locking We Didn't Start the Fire because the only edits it is getting right now are vandalism. If someone wants to tweak paragraphs or add comments, it is easier to lock the page from vandals and update the article based on talk page discussion, then to leave the article unlocked and open to some proper edits but mainly vandal edits. What we should have is a locking policy and template that describes the article as entirely complete and further edits should not be necessary, but discussed on the talk page first.--Will2k 14:35, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, do none of these pages have edit histories? Do timestamps in signatures not work? Just note the date that the poll or discussion closed and move everything said after that date to a more relevant place. I've seen requests like this before, and I still don't understand the desire to have certain pages remain just the way they are, now and forever. Obviously that's necessary for pages which have serious legal weight—things like Misplaced Pages:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License and the various disclaimer pages. Why is it necessary for old polls and discussions? This isn't a bulletin board, it's a wiki. Pages aren't supposed to be locked without some pressing need. Misplaced Pages:Protection policy#Uses

To Will2k: I suggest reading some of the articles listed in Misplaced Pages:Featured articles#Music before declaring that article "complete". —Charles P.  15:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Excellent point, but that particular song and article has a special nature to it that makes it a target of vandalism.--Will2k 18:33, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall

We've got an endless revert war going on surrounding Camilla Parker-Bowles and whether she is "the Princess Charles." It's added, it's removed, it's added, it's removed, it's added, it's removed, and the nimrods over there even removed my attempt as a third-party at mediating a hold. I'm going to try to mediate the hold again, but am not optimistic. I think that the page needs at least temporary protection to encourage the disputing parties to come to a resolution. — WCityMike 16:00, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Um, so where do we find out if the request will be granted, and how quickly is it acted upon? — WCityMike 22:43, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

I'm protecting the page. -- AllyUnion (talk) 03:42, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. — WCityMike 12:11, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Reform Party of Minnesota

This was a name of what is now the Independence Party of Minnesota, but also of a splinter group that formed when the 2000 election was happening. It deserves its own article. User:Smith03 continually reverts edits to merge the pages, even after i requested he stop. PLEASE PROTECT EdwinHJ | Talk 20:20, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Edit-this-page-large.png

This page is a common target of vandalism (2 reverts needed already today) and I cannot see the advantage to keeping it unprotected. It would make life far easier if it were protected, and would not make things miserable for anyone (the page shouldn't be modified anyway). Smoddy (_tek) 20:05, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)