Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zetawoof (talk | contribs) at 18:12, 19 April 2006 (→Current requests for protection: moved request to the right section (REALbasic)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome—request protection of a page, file, or template here.

Shortcuts WP:RFPP WP:RFP WP:RPP 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. Skip to table of contents requests to raise protection lower protection requested edits (purge) Request protection of a page, or increasing the protection level Request protection 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

Current requests for protection

Request either semi-protection, full protection, or move protection by placing it in bold text (add ''' before and after a word to make it bold) at the beginning of your statement.

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

Semi-protection - we've had a persistent IP-based vandal (67.0.72.0/23) repeatedly reverting the article to a meaningless state. The activity is sporadic, but very annoying. Zetawoof 18:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

You Are the Quarry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-Protection - This page is under constant vandalism from a dynamic IP. Acegikmo1 17:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It's really not enough vandalism to justify a semiprotection. Just revert, as annoying as it is. I've watchlisted it so I can help you. · Katefan0/poll 17:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Cheers

Semi-Protection - My baby is currently the featured article on the main page, but anon vandals are having some fun so a little protection would be nice. Already requested by another user on the talk page. Staxringold 02:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

s-protection is never done for the current FA. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 03:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

What kind of protection is appropriate, in that case? I ask because the page has already been hit quite a few times despite only just recently being put up. Staxringold 03:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow response. All you can do is revert it. The FA gets hit with extremely heavy vandalism pretty much everyday, but protecting it would go against the idea of a wiki. Most of the time vandalism is reverted within a minute. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 08:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Alameda High School

Semi-Protection - Anonymous IP addresses and such consistently vandalizing the article, adding themselves famous alumni or adding false claims to the Athletics section. Skhatri2005 00:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-All 07:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

List of Washington State Routes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

full protection - 50+ reverts this month, based on a dispute about whether routes should be "State Route X (Washington)" or "Washington State Route X". I don't much care which way it goes, but the edit war is making the history and my watchlist seem pretty goofy. Travisl 23:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

As one of the reluctant warriors in this incredibly stupid dispute, I support this request. --phh (/_c) 23:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I also support it, being an admin I could protect it but I am an active participant in the battle, and am opting not to. Admrb♉ltz (t • c • b • p • d • m) 02:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I also support this protection. JohnnyBGood t c 17:03, 19 April 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 explanation of what you want to add to the page.

New anti-Semitism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I made the request to protect. I think we can try unprotected it now. Homey 15:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks to me like discussions are ongoing; I've asked on the talk page. · Katefan0/poll 21:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Homey has made it clear that he intends to start reverting again when the page is unprotected, and no agreement has been reached yet. SlimVirgin 03:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I've spent a lot of time reviewing the discussion page. SlimVirgin's statement about Homey is biased. Homey has shown himself very willing to discuss changes. I see no evidence of any attempt to disrupt - in fact my experience of SlimVirgin shows it is she who goes to extraodinary lengths to get her way. I'm happy to document this, but this is not the place. Mccready 08:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

In case it matters, Mccready is currently following my edits. He is not familiar with or part of the dispute at New anti-Semitism. SlimVirgin 08:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, Homey has said that he will stop reverting if all the stuff he objects to is removed from the article. It hardly inspires confidence that edit-wars will not immediately resume. And Mccready, please avoid Wikistalking; that's an official Misplaced Pages policy. Jayjg 16:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to leave it protected a bit longer. · Katefan0/poll 16:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Rescinding request. Struct 06:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's see.. you didn't follow the instructions for adding an article here, you didn't sign your comment, and your comment, well, makes no sense. The semi-protection looks to be in order. So, request denied. Take this to a discussion page before you bring it back to request unprotection. An edit war is not the way to get your side across. --Golbez 06:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I have taken the issue to the talk pages, and despite the fact that I'm sure dealing with these requests is very taxing on your patience, I'm nonetheless going to point out that your response was unnecessarily impolite and sarcastic, and in violation of assume good faith. Struct 07:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Current requests for significant edits to a protected page

Please demonstrate a good reason for an edit to a protected page. These are only done in exceptional circumstances, or when there is very clear consensus for an edit and continued protection. Please link to the talk page where consensus was reached.

You may also add {{Editprotected}} to the article's talk page if you would like an inconsequential change of some kind made, but note that most of these should simply wait for unprotection.