Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Esn (talk | contribs) at 19:24, 29 June 2007 (→{{la|The Adventure of Sudsakorn}}). 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.

Princess Leia Organa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protect Since the last protection expired, new users and anons again have been adding perverted fanboy drivel to the Return of the Jedi section. Requesting a longer protection period, please. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 19:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Declined. Only one instance of vandalism today, two yesterday, and two before that. Five instances of vandalism in three days is insufficient to sprotect. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 19:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Fully Protect. Been re-created 3 times today. The article is nonsense. Trumpetband 18:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Creation protected --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 18:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The Adventure of Sudsakorn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

semi-protect. I previously asked for semi-protection over here, a request which was granted for a period of about two weeks. Now that the two weeks have expired, the same thing is happening again, and the same reasons apply as last time. 19 vandalism edits occured today. This anonymous IP vandalism is taking up all of the edit history of this little-visited and rarely-edited page. Esn 18:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Declined. That vandalism was all by one address. This is relevant as you wouldn't be requesting protection had that IP so happened to have been blocked as soon as it vandalised. Wait it out a bit longer, and request protection again if the vandalism is out of control. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 18:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the trouble is that the IP changes every time the user logs on, so I guess it would've been pointless to ban him. But alright, I'll wait for more occurences. Esn 19:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

NASCAR 08 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism, keeps getting re-written like an Advertisement. If possible it should be locked until July 24th the day the game comes out. Thanks Fisha695 18:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Declined. Warn the user to not write articles like adverts, and if they continue, contact me and I'll warn or block the user. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 18:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

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

full protection +expiry 12 hours, Full protection: User talk of banned user, Abusing unblock template, said "Please give me another chance unblock me right now for I will keep doing this until my apologies are accepted.", only has 10 hours left Until(1 == 2) 17:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Declined. Hasn't done anything on the page recently, so there is no need to protect. Please note the difference between a ban and a block. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 18:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

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

full-protection (temporary) - User:Scott5834 has proposed edits for this page that other editors oppose and continues to revert this page each time his edits are removed. In doing so he has now breached the three-revert rule. Two editors oppose the edits, one opposes but has made other edits in an attempt to compromise and one editor has made edits but has not clearly stated his opinion. User:Scott5834 seems unwilling to discuss the issue further insisting that his edits remain and has instead sought mediation. Temporary full protection of this page (with edits as of 01:27, 30 June 2007 by AussieLegend) is requested while this issue is resolved in order to prevent further unnecessary reversions. --AussieLegend 17:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Declined. Firstly, we don't take requests on which version we protect. Secondly, only the two of you are actually edit warring, nobody else is. Discuss the matter first. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 19:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

G-Unit Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

semi-protection Hi, I request protection to the article G-Unit Records because an anonymous user has been continually reverting the work of me and other editors. They continually remove large sections of information about the current roster and about other record labels owned by G-Unit Records. Below are some recent examples of vandalism:

• Silly names inserted
• large sections removed
• Again, large removal of text
• and again

These are just a few of many exmaples of vandalism in the past day or two.

Thanks --The-G-Unit-Boss 17:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Declined --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 19:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

semi-protection Semi-protection: Vandalism, Lots of vandalism from many new accounts/ips Until(1 == 2) 16:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Pac-Man Championship Edition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Full protection: User:KeiferSkunk received arbitration from other users regarding his ideas on removing all scoring references (while also trying to add strategy references), and was told it would not be acceptable. He briefly agreed and is trying to go against the arbitration decision. There is no reason for adding or subtracting anything to the article now or for a while. Please lock the article. -- JAF1970 16:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Declined. No edits at all today. "No need for edits" is not a valid protection reason, either. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 19:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Note: Please note that commentary and negotiation are not arbitration. Also, please try to keep things civil on the article Talk. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Semi-Protection: an unregistered account keeps making unwanted changes. I've tried to be nice and make compromises, but they're behaving unprofessionally. -- JAF1970 16:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I am that unregistered user - my reverts are due to the speculative nature of the material being added to this stub.

Wrong. JAF1970 18:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I've asked an admin User_talk:GeeJo#==annoying_editor== to help with this issue - maybe another will read this and be able to sort it out.

I'm also getting increasingly annoyed with the attitude of the poster of this request - quote from their talk page to me User_talk:JAF1970#manners? "Your problem is you haven't registered with Misplaced Pages, for starters. JAF1970 16:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC) "

also see the talk page and edit history for the article Civilization Revolution‎ - note two editors both agree that DS support is speculative for the time being - see Talk:Civilization_Revolution#Proof_of_Wii_and_DS

Seeing as the xbox and ps3 logos appear in the trailer it's safe to assume it's coming to them. I've removed the other machines for now - until there is confirmation.87.102.4.153 12:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree The press release states it is comming to "next generation consoles and handhelds". For all we know it could be a cellphone so I agree with holding off on the ds and psp until further conformation, possible as early as e3. FSU Guy 13:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

And I disagree. Restored to the original. Take 2 has already announced it for SPECIFIC systems. JAF1970 14:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Could someone explain concepts such as consensus, no original research etc to the poster of this request.87.102.4.153 17:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The DS version (as well as PSP, 360 and PS3 versions) have been confirmed but anonymous posters keep refuting it. JAF1970 18:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

And now we have unsigned posters writing in the Talk page. Please, make it stop. Semi-protect, please. JAF1970 18:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

18:50, 29 June 2007 68.236.201.105 (Talk) (2,700 bytes) (Again - I know for a fact it won't be released for DS (it will be made clear during E3 on July 12), but offer this wording as a compromise till then to satisfy the DS fanboys...) Does this sound like someone who should be posting in Misplaced Pages? PLEASE SEMI-PROTECT IT. JAF1970 18:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Fully protected due to content dispute. Again, please try to be a little more civil and not bite the newcomers, even if you consider edits disruptive. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with full protection, since I doubt any relevent new items will come in between now and then, but the Talk page has degenerated into a war between the merits of the DS and the Wii rather than the confirmation of which console systems will be using it. JAF1970 19:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Leeds University Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-Protection, someone keeps readding something me and another LUU staff member keeps removing, please protect -- Barry Carlyon 15:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Declined, seems to have died down. Apologies for the request not being handled more promptly. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

2007 Haymarket car bomb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

move-protection, the page has been moved three times in the last hour. Any further move should be done via a requested move. --Philip Stevens 15:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Move protected – Steel 15:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Protect from recreation. Article deleted as a result of AFD which has been recreated several times (twice today). --Kurt Shaped Box 15:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Done – Steel 15:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

2007 London, U.K. car bomb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

semi-protection +expiry 2 days, Semi-protection, Vandalism on current event that is changing --trey 15:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Declined. Most anon edits seem constructive. – Steel 15:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Kappa Alpha Psi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Permanent semi-protect. Repeated vandalism from various IPs. They continue to try to demoralize the fraternity's namesake. Pop4any1 14:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. – Steel 15:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

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

semi-protection - 1 week - Repeated vandalism from IPs over the last couple of days, page blankings, and replacing the page with gibberish. DarkSaber2k 13:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected – Steel 13:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you accidentally protected if for longer... September 29? --Trumpetband 19:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, ignore the length of protection that people ask for. They're normally totally arbitrary and far too long. "1 week" is certainly an arbitrary length of protection for "repeated vandalism". --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 19:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

but, he put it for longer...--Trumpetband 19:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

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

semi-protection - 1 week. Page suffers consistent linkspam by anonymous IPs, the most recent of which has created an account to avoid the 3RR. I'm including the four most recent diffs for reference: --Oni Ookami Alfador 12:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Declined. I've blocked a couple of IPs, let me know if the problem continues. – Steel 13:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Negima!? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Permanent semi-protection - Article vandalized again by anon IP. Don't decline this because this article is very likely to be defaced again if not acted upon immediately. - 上村七美 | talk 08:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.

I know the anon IP threatened to keep coming back. However, since the article appears to have been vandalized only once since May 28, it is more appropriate to wait and see if the anon IP carries out his/her threat. --Richard 10:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You mean anon IPs. Well, put it on your watchlist then. Because I'm not logged in all the time, you know. - 上村七美 | talk 10:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

User talk:218.103.163.203 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Full protection Full protection: Personal attacks and page blanking by blocked user. Meateater 08:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Declined

It's just a user talk page. Leave him alone and report him if he ever gets unblocked and does anything inappropriate. Otherwise, don't waste your time with his user talk page. Don't feed the trolls. --Richard 10:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

El Toro Handrail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

semi-protection Semi-protection: Vandalism, Breno 07:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Declined Some good edits coming through from anons, don't want to filter those out. Riana (talk) 07:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

User talk:ForestH2 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

full protection Full protection: User talk of banned user, ~ Wikihermit 06:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Note: Do we generally fully protect talkpages of blocked users if they aren't abusing the page? Riana (talk) 07:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Semi-protect - IPs have been editing in some stats (update only some, causing problems... if the most recent edit date for stats is updated when only some of the stats are, the info is incorrect), and he just hit his 3000th hit (big milestone in baseball), and IPs keep editing it into the article, even though it's already in there. A day or two of IP protection should be fine, since there will be lots less media coverage of his reaching 3000 hits then. Miles Blues 05:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardshusr (talk • contribs) 07:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Durant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)}

Semi-Protect - Draft was held today and so its a target for vandalism and has a bunch of anons interjecting their opinion. Vandalism like this is hard to revert due to the frequency of good/bad edits. Corpx 04:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 7 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Riana (talk) 07:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Tommy Banks (football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

semi-protection +expiry 1 day, Semi-protection: Vandalism, Seems to be some chatting over the last 30 minutes JForget 03:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. WjBscribe 03:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

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

semi-protection Semi-protection: User talk of banned user, Vandalism Andrew_pmk | Talk 03:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. WjBscribe 03:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

User talk:24.33.129.162 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

semi-protection +expiry 1 day, Semi-protection: Vandalism, Blocked IP who've removed his warnings JForget 02:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 24 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. WjBscribe 02:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

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

semi-protect. Continued Posting of REAL images of Anus's. This is not appropriate for a site used by children as well as adults, and will only continue to happen unless protections placed. Nimrauko 00:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Declined. See WP:CENSOR. bibliomaniac15 00:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that WP:PROFANITY states that "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Misplaced Pages readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available." I don't think the omission of this pictures would cause the article to become less informative, relevant, or accurate. --Trumpetband 13:25, 29 June 2007 (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.

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

unprotect. The original dispute that led to protection (inclusion of content on LifeLock) has been resolved (see Talk:Fred Thompson#LifeLock, proposal). Several other minor points of contention also have agreement (see the "Unprotection?" topic at the very bottom). BigΔT 00:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected - talk page looks good - Alison ☺ 00:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

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

unprotect. The man is only "notable" for being seemingly unemployed and a gigantic loser. Nothing he has said is profound or awe-inspiring. I'm requesting unprotection and deletion.

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.

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

At the end of Chris Benoit#Death, please add the following:

Some media organizations have hypothesized that a steroid-induced rage may be the cause of Benoit's actions, as some doctors have linked steroid use to uncontrollable anger, among other psychological issues which include paranoia. However, the WWE has stated that they believe the facts of this crime do not support the hypothesis that "roid rage" played a role in the murders. They cite evidence of premeditation in addition to the lack of a toxicology report, and the fact that the steroids found within Benoit's home were legally prescribed to him.

The Hybrid 15:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Done (by User:SirFozzie)

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

Common now, it says "don't stubst", it says that admins will have edit summaries like "contest was:" but it's not true. When the discussion is over they often say "deleted per Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/that particular date", never "content was: #redirect something", someone really needs to delete the message about not stubsting, there is also another problem. Without stubsting it, it will ONLY list to Redirects for discussion of the current day, not the day it started being discussed. TheBlazikenMaster 17:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Declined - this needs to be discussed on the RFD talk page, not just done unilaterally. It is a major change in a process that potentially has other technical considerations (like bots and scripts). It needs to be proposed and discussed. --BigDT 23:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

That's what I've been trying to do, but there is no reply. TheBlazikenMaster 16:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Fulfilled/denied requests

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

Semi-protection, after a period of one week. Lot of recent IP vandalism. Cheers, JetLover 23:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I was about to request myself. It's getting so bad that I'm hitting bugs trying to revert it and not reverting all of it. --

Semi-protected with an expiry time of 1 week. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Semi-protection please see note I left on ANI . — Zerida 21:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Declined Last edit by an anon IP was 17 June. There seems to be some edit warring among established users, however. I advise the talk pages is used to settle conficits. Regards, Signature 21:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, which ones are the "established users"? Most of the user names I see are newly created and were just tagged for sockpuppetry. — Zerida 22:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right "established" is a bad choice of words, what I meant is registered. If you suspect these accounts of being malicous sockpuppets, leave the evidence -In the form of Diffs please- on my talk page. But please don't just claim an account to be a sockpuppet - provide me with the evidence I need to take administrative action. Signature 22:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

BrendelSignature, I appreciate you thoroughness but I feel compelled to leave a response here because you said that I simply claimed the account to be a sockpuppet. Did you read the note I left on ANI? As per my ANI report, some of these socks have already been banned by another admin before, but the pages were hit by a new round of vandalism in the last couple of days, and the few people who are watching these pages (and there are only a few of us) can't keep up. This is the block log of one of the banned socks. As you can see, the pattern of edits is exactly the same. The main user account behind these socks is User:Serenesoulnyc who as you can here made the same type of edits shortly before he was banned. Hope this better clarifies the situation. — Zerida 22:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't see your ANI report - sorry. I will look into the links you provided me above. Signature 22:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I have so far been able to block 3 sockpuppets. As this user makes a habit of evading his/her blocks to edit these two article I have granted each 2 protection. Regards, Signature 23:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Semi-protection as above. — Zerida 21:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Declined There seems to be only one new user causing trouble. Please deal with him/her directly. One users disruptive behavior is not sufficient cause for a block in this case. Regards, Signature 21:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I understand how to deal with him directly if he is a banned user. He is not supposed to be editing Misplaced Pages at all, correct? Also when you say "one new user", are you referring to the different socks? — Zerida 22:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I am refering the new user accounts I see in the history. If you suspect these account of being sockpuppets please report them as such. As I've said above, if you think a banned users is using socks to edit WP please lay out your case and evidence clearly - so I can take action. Regards, Signature 22:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I have so far been able to block 3 sockpuppets. As this user makes a habit of evading his/her blocks to edit these two article I have granted each 2 protection. Regards, Signature 23:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Godzilla: Unleashed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Full-protection. Ongoing and continuous edit war between several users. Just64helpin 21:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Signature 21:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Guitar Hero II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-Protection 8 reverts have been made in this day, and when looked back to the near previous days, there are almost no days without a vandalism, and the majority from the vandalism seems to come from IPs. ~Iceshark7 21:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Signature 21:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

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

semi-protection +expiry 1 year, Semi-protection: Vandalism, They continue to change when they know that GMC is the second largest auto company by salesand we continue to warn and they change still. Sparrowman980 20:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.-Wafulz 20:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Semi-protection Biography subject to continuous anon IP vandalism and potential libel edits in violation of WP:BLP.-Robotam 19:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Declined - there is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time.-Wafulz 20:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Super Smash Bros. (series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protect. Daily vandalism of the character list and regular additions of bogas information. The Light6 08:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. MastCell 21:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Semi-protection This article repeatedly vandalised by anons since it added to the mainpage as the Today's featured article. At least protect this obvious vandal magnet till it removed from the mainpage. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ 18:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Declined we don't protect the main page featured article. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

G-Unit Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

semi-protection Hi, I request semi-protection to the article G-Unit Records because an anonymous user has been continually revertig the work of me and other editors. They continually remove large sections of information about the current roster and about other record labels owned by G-Unit Records.

Thanks --The-G-Unit-Boss 17:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Declined - there is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Semi-protection. Article is being repeatedly vandalised by non-registered IP users. Because of its large number of subsections, this article presents a special problem in terms of reverting vandalism. After vandalism has taken place, most of the editors who come along are only looking at the particular subsection that they are editing, and not paying any attention to the previous edits, which therefore get lost in the shuffle, with nobody even realizing that parts have been vandalized. - Mafia Expert 17:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Declined - There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

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

semi-protection +expiry 2 months, Semi-protection: Vandalism, Possible right-sided vandalism... Giggity Giggity GOO! 16:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Declined. Has not been vandalised for over 12 hours. --Deskana (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Semi-protect. It's a constant vandalism target.--h i s _{r e s e a r c h} 16:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Declined. Hasn't been vandalised in four days. --Deskana (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

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

semi-protect. Deal with vandalism, disputes and sock puppets of currently blocked or banned users from editing it. 71.175.33.128 16:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Declined - There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Liverpool F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-Protect until 1 September Frequently edited to contain untransferred players (Fernando Torres Mainly) so semi protect until the end of the transfer window. Users and IP adresses involved  CHAZA93  Talk  Contribs  16:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected with an expiry time of 1 month. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

1. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286834,00.html Fox New's page on Roid Rage's role in the deaths
2. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19424899/ MSNBC on Roid Rage
3. http://www.wwe.com/inside/news/benoitpressrelease WWE's rebutal to allegations of Roid Rage

• Non-talk pages automatically signed by HagermanBot