Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Yanksox (talk | contribs) at 19:21, 28 August 2006 (→{{la|Whittaker World cup 2006}}: decline request). 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

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.

Whittaker World cup 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Full protection for a time, please; this article is being considered for deletion and the creator has removed the afd tag several times. I've asked him to explain either at AFD or on the talk page how this is not a hoax, so page protection would be preferrable to blocking at this point. -- nae'blis 19:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I've warned him not to do it again. To be honest, blocking would be preferable to protection since he has now been warned about it, and if he does it, it would be with the intent of doing so despite the warning to cease. Yanksox 19:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Full-protection again until a conclusion can be made. The page was unprotected when Edipedia claimed that "revert wars had died down" and requested it; however, he immediately made five reverts in less than 24 hours after the unprotection, without any discussion. Aran|heru|nar 13:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Ebaum's World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-Protection due to YTMND.com users and other anon IPs inserting and vandalising every other minute HawkerTyphoon 16:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Current requests for unprotection

• WP:RFUP
• WP:RFPU

Before 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.

User:SqueakBox (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:SqueakBox is under Personal Attacks parole and has been blocked for posting an insult in his user page against me as can be seen in his block log in the line dated August 21 2006. The edit summary of that line provides this diff. SqueakBox posted the following: "My greates achivemente here have been and restoring José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero from the POV of another user who claims to write about saints but who is determined to slur him". "Hagiographer", my nicks means just that. SqueakBox has been also banned from editing the article on Zapatero. The insult is still in his user page, which has been protected by User:Guettarda (here), so it can't be removed, after I've crossed it out here. The insult was fully recovered by SqueakBox himself () from an IP address he's recognised in the past that belongs to him. I ask somebody to unprotect the page or at least to eliminate that offensive comment. It's absurd to block a user for an insulting comment and then preventing it from being removed. Hagiographer 08:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I am an employee of SqueakBox. He is banned I am not. He asked me to point out that the attack was removed by me , that Hagioghrapher has a history of attacking SqueakBox through vandalising his user page and that he is al=so currently involved in forging SqueakBox's signature at the talk page for zapatero . he is asking to unprotect this page in order to vandalise it, this page was protected solely to avoid this user vandalising the page. Hagiographer is also under a no attack parole as a suspected sock puppet of Zapatancas so please do not unprotect thisd uiser's ]_|_history_|_protect_|_delete">16:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Charlotte Catholic High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I only want to edit the article to make it at least informative and true. I am glad that its finally been protected becuase im getting sick of all the edits done. Thanks! Airbornecasualty 12:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Current requests for significant edits to a protected page

• WP:RFED

Ideally, 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.

Hafele-Keating experiment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Several registered users (I believe it may be just one with more than profile) keep posting things on GPS-related pages, which are untrue. This keeps happening on the noted page as well as on the Gps page -- please have a look at the discussion on the bottom of GPS page. Most of their posts are heavily biased, wanting to make the reader believe that the so-called "relativistic corrections" are critical to GPS. The consensus in the GPS community is that these are mere corrections to the Newtonian mechanics formulae as originally applied in the GPS in the 1980-ies. I do not think I need to register in order Βt, as it is precisely the anonymity option why I appreciate Wiki, just like in the old days. Now, those several users (or is it just one, "19 years old" if one wants to believe the info on their page -- they seem amazingly serious for teenagers) have just misused the fact that they are registered, and have actually locked the above page. Please unlock it. Here is the text they dislike; there is nothing in it that could be deemed speculative -- on the contrary:

"It is often mistakenly reported that SR and GR theories are critical in operating the NAVSTAR GPS navigation system. However, GPS was never designed to utilize or test either of the two theories. Upon insisting by some relativity physicists in the late 1990-ies, GPS navigation and control messages were included immeasurably small corrections in addition to the originally pre-programmed position corrections (as due to the atmospheric, signal-multipath and other effects). Without explanation however, and in a manner that is not entirely transparent, the relativity physics community has recently started using this correction as a proof for the two relativity theories.

In fact, the so-called "GPS relativistic correction" is too small to be measured on Earth using even the most precise (geodetic) GPS techniques so-called differential positioning (DGPS), also called the relative or geodetic GPS positioning. Thus in his classical book GPS Satellite Surveying, Alfred Leick writes (p.170): "In relative (mm) positioning, most of the relativistic effects cancel or become negligible." This is because the relativity-predicted values, if real, would amount to less than one half of the normal environmental (insurmountable) geophysical noise.

Therefore, geometrical differencing in precise positioning cancels out most of the so-called "relativistic effects"; the GPS system can perform equally superb without SR or GR theories. Hence no known (scientific or commercial) GPS receiver seems to utilize the so-called "GPS relativistic correction". The above-cited Leick's book is considered by some to be one of the most authoritative sources on GPS geodesy nowadays. It also lists numerous references that show in greater detail why the so-called "relativistic effects" turn out to be irrelevant for achieving the highest (millimetre-level) obtainable accuracy in precision positioning. Similarly, non-geodetic (navigation) accuracy would not suffer to a noticeable degree either, since, if real, the so-called "relativistic effects" would amount to a centimetre level, which is less than any other single error-source in modern navigation. For instance, the most reliable utilization of GPS in global navigation, the WAAS system, requires no so-called "relativistic corrections" to achieve its metre-level accuracy.

Hence, there is no evidence at the present that either of the Einstein's relativity theories is critical for the operation of the GPS system as used in local (precision) positioning or global navigation." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.253.151.77 (talk • contribs)

Without regard to the validity of your edits: The page in question is only semiprotected. If you register an account and wait a few days, you'll be able to edit it. You'll also be significantly more anonymous if you do so - right now, every edit you're making is tagged with your IP address, whereas, if you register and make edits as a logged-in user, the edits will just have your login name attached to them. Zetawoof 06:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

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

There is a significant amount of controversy on the recent demotion of Pluto to a dwarf planet. The Pluto page seems to be protected. I think that there should be some mention of the controversy surrounding the IAU's decision and surrounding circumstances, since presently there is only a very one-sided discussion of Pluto's demotion. There are a number of major astrophysicists who disagree with the recent decision, and frankly, to have no mention of this at all in the article is somewhat embarassing.

The page is not actually protected.Voice-of-All 20:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It's semi-protected. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Now. I added that after making that comment.Voice-of-All 20:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

WHDH-TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page is protected after someone decided to put a one time technical glitch as a "major error". This glitch was NOT worthy of the notation that the user, WCAU1210, put it as.

As an engineer at a similar type facility, these errors are not easy to have, but are made worse when someone draws attention to them like that. The portion of the page, with the header WHDH Newscast Meltdown needs to get removed for the reasons I stated above. If the event was a major earmark on the station's history, like a tower collapse, or studio burning down, then I can see it. But this was a one time technical error. While trying to remove it previously, I was doing it the incorrect way. I did not intend to leave blank sections and didn't realize there was an edit page part at the top, and was editing it incorrectly using the edit section next to the paragraph. It was this error that caused the blank section, and not malicious vandalisim. This one section I talked about needs to be moved to the talk section, and off of the main page. I hope I posted this correctly. Thank you Mike Fitzpatrick. Necrat

The page was never actually protected - you can go ahead and edit it. The mere presence of a {{sprotected}} or {{protected}} template doesn't protect the article. Zetawoof 05:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologise for the protection and all that, not fully reading the details. I also removed the "Mektdown" story -- if this was explained in the "edit summary" box when the change was made, none of this would've happened. I'm just ashamed and disgusted of the whole thing -- if only I could get the last couple hours of my life back. Again, my apologies. -- azumanga 05:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

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

(This is the original reasoning used in the "request for unprotection".) The article has been under protection from an edit war for nearly 2-3 weeks. This was stemming from how several users particularly viewed a source which they claimed to be biased; however, thusfar they haven't been able to adduce the evidence to back their claims. While there have been significant additions on the talk page, the opposing party that has been involved in it has been ambiguously unclear of what he wants removed and has set down his own rules on how Misplaced Pages's sources are to be used. While he feels that sources should be completely unbiased (a misconstrued principle of Misplaced Pages), the one source I'm using (a collection of witness testimonies during a massacre in the USSR) is more than reputable since it has been cited extensively by a variety of Sovietologist and ethnologist authors. Third party participation has been limited but nevertheless helpful in reconciling the differences. I'm willing to make the concession of allowing the "neutrality and fact" tag to remain for the sake of avoiding further edit wars and so I could continue editing the article. also.--MarshallBagramyan 17:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you clarify what your request is exactly? The above seems for of a statement than a request.Voice-of-All 20:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I shouldn't have cut-paste it...I feel that although the article has been protected, I would like it to be unlocked so I could continue to solely to finish up the article. The main reason there were so many reverts was because of the addition of the "neutrality and factuality" tag which was subseqently added and removed by various editors leading to the protection. Although the opposing editor who kept adding the tag has been vague on what he wants changed and his claims to not add information have largely been unsubstantiated by sources, I would like to continue to add and complete the article while making the concession that at the same time allowing the tag to remain so all issues can be finally resolved via the talk page.--MarshallBagramyan 21:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

As long as it is protected, I can only add a)specific consensus supported text b)tags that clearly reflect the situation, c)small/unrelated edits from protected edit requests, or d)spelling/grammer fixes. I can't unprotect it for certain editors to make edits and then re-protect.Voice-of-All 21:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, in that case I suppose I'll wait it out until the article is completely unprotected but if you can post that on the talk page, I would just like to a)clean up the grammar, b)format the paragraphs and c)clarify the citations, I won't do any significant editing.--MarshallBagramyan 23:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, reading your profile, I would much appreciate your mediation on the article itself. Thank you. --MarshallBagramyan 23:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Fullfilled/denied requests

Dragon Ball Z: Budokai Tenkaichi 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Permanent Semi-Protection This is rediculous. It's been protected 3 times now, and each time it's un-protected, the vandals just pour in, uncontrolably. It's too much to just revert. The talk page should be protected as well, as the vandals and trolls and using it like a forum.--KojiDude 17:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected - too soon for considering permanent semi-protection. --Srikeit 18:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you protect the talk page as well?--KojiDude 18:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Semi-protection on a permanent basis. Continuous vandalism by anonymouse IPs on a regular basis. As it is already a fairly well-written article, I recommend permanent semi-protection to be given so that useful edits will only be allowed by veteran accounts familiar with Misplaced Pages rules and capable of approaching such controversial topics. Ariedartin JECJY 13:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected - not sure about permanent semi-protected, but it's semi-protected for now. —Mets501 (talk) 13:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Who Wants to Be a Superhero? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Protection Constant vandalism by vast numbers of non-registered users pretty much since the day the article was started. Otto4711 13:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected —Mets501 (talk) 13:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Semi-protection: Constant vandalism by an IP hopping vandal in the last 24 hours since lifting of last semi-protect. --  Netsnipe    12:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected by Malo —Mets501 (talk) 13:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The article was largely written by me. These past few weeks I think that the edit war record has been well breached on this article, as User:Afrika paprika and User:Lowg rv each other - partially also User:Kubura and User:PANONIAN. The arguement is Afrika paprika's edits. I am concerned about his actions, as can be seen when I tried to involve in the arguement at his talk page. It includes vulgar language (in Croatian). His other edits also don't seem nice at all. I invited him to discuss at the article's talk page; he however continually refuses and pushes his potentially biased version into the article. I suggest full protect of my long-ago version so that negotiations can begin between the warring sides. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Fully protected - Please note that protection is not to be used to protect a specific version, so I protected whichever version happened to exist when I got to the article (which I think was yours anyway) —Mets501 (talk) 13:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Edit war coming about, 3rr broken i daresay. HawkerTyphoon 11:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Fully protected —Mets501 (talk) 13:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Reverted in and out of existence numerous times in the past 3 weeks. Situation is only getting worse, as advocacy is failing, for the time being. WormwoodJagger 10:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected —Mets501 (talk) 13:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Semi-protection Former youtube celebrity. Has been the target of fairly serious online attacks outside wikipedia and now in wikipedia itself. Person is of only minor notability. Andjam 10:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Declined - Not enough recent activity to justify protection. —Mets501 (talk) 13:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Queen of Pop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection Has been reverted several times between to stand points. I believe the current standpoint is more inclusive and informative of all artists ever given the title than just a plain redirect to Madonna. Obviously, certain Madonna fans are unhappy about this. --UltimateKylie 08:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Declined - Protection is not to endorse a specific page version. —Mets501 (talk) 13:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Semi-protection Has been viciously vandalized for at least over a month now, the situation worsened severely when the frequency of the attacks went from several times a week to a daily basis, and more recently several times a day. Vandalists were almost exclusively anon. users from a great variety of ips and locations. Tal :) 07:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected —Mets501 (talk) 13:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Semi-protection: Holy crap, what did he do recently that suddenly caused all of this vandalism? Ryūlóng 04:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected - Stephen Colbert fans reacting to the result of 58th Annual Primetime Emmy Awards#Outstanding Individual Performance in a Variety or Music Program —Mets501 (talk) 13:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:WPBiography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

High-risk template. Used in thousands of talk pages. Nobody needs to edit this template and it should be fully protected like other templates to prevent Misplaced Pages from bogging down because of an edit like a picture change (which has happened twice in the past week). Hbdragon88 04:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Fully protected. —Mets501 (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

User talk:71.131.230.166 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Sprotect: Just another one of those idiotic anon vandals up to the usual. Ryūlóng 00:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected. —Mets501 (talk) 13:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Protected for about three weeks after some forum-induced vandalism. No vandalism since then. 71.67.132.178 20:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Un-protected. Its been protected for long enough. Hopefully things have calmed down since then. Voice-of-All 21:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Scottandrewhutchins: Attempting to hijack related topics eminating from Charun. I would much rather that we both have no access to editting than to allow him to re-enter nonsense that was deemed so clearly unsourced and baseless before (ie: "She was the herald of death, assisted ill people on their deathbeds and inhaled good demons).) I've never in my life heard of "demon-inhaling" in classical mythology and smacks of total insanity.

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. For now, be sure to use descriptive edit summaries and discuss edits on talk. Voice-of-All 02:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)