Misplaced Pages

:Requests for page protection - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 121.96.125.61 (talk) at 04:50, 5 September 2008 (→Current requests for protection). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:50, 5 September 2008 by 121.96.125.61 (talk) (→Current requests for protection)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)


"WP:RFP" and "WP:RPP" redirect here. You may also be looking for Misplaced Pages:Requests for permissions, Misplaced Pages:Requesting copyright permission, or Misplaced Pages:Random page patrol.
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.

    Skip to requests for protection
    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
    this header: view • 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.

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

    Temporary semi-protection Cause of IP vandalism by 76.201.142.247 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). 121.96.125.61 (talk) 04:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

    United States Constitution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, long-time target of IP vandalism, which has increased since around labor day.Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


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

    Semi protect until the unconstructive edits cool down. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

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

    Temporary Semi protection High levels of vandalism recently, maybe because it's a feature article. See history. Techman224 (talk) 03:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

    Today's featured article often is not protected, specifically because it is the featured article of the day, and the goal is to encourage people to edit. I wouldn't be surprised if this request for protection is denied, but if so, I would ask that it be watched, as due to the nature of sports rivalries (especially Calgary-Edmonton-Vancouver), it will remain a pretty good target throughout its day. Resolute 03:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
    « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 03:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

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

    Semi protection high levels of vandalism. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

    Semi-protected « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 03:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

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

    Semi-protection The page was un-protected a few weeks ago. It was ok for a while but now that the kids are back to school, the page is vandalized 3 or 4 times a day. Protection against Ip editing should be enough. The page doesn't have any real activity anyway. --McSly (talk) 02:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

    Semi-protected « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 03:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

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

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Always a susceptible target for vandalism, this article needs to be protected again.. Marlith (Talk)  02:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

    Semi-protected « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 03:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

    Primera División de México (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Move Protection a user has moved the title without a discussion a couple of times, i moved it back to the title it was before. BlueRed 00:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. It's been like 5 days. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 03:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

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

    temporary semi-protection , Edit warring anons who can't agree on whether the plural of euro is euro or euros.Snappy56 (talk) 00:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

    Declined If two IP's are edit warring, then they can be blocked. The whole page doesnt need to be protected. Warn them and then report if need be. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 03:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

    List of characters from Total Drama Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Semi-protection for same reason as episode article listed below. A practical tsunami of edits adding original research, vandalism, etc. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 00:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

    Semi-protected for a period of 40 days and nights, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 03:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

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

    Create protect Article has been created multiple times in a form that is not encyclopedic (usually bordering on nonsense). Doesn't seem likely to be a viable article. NanohaA'sYuri 22:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

    Creation protected Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

    List of Total Drama Island episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Semi-protection heavy IP vandalism from multiple IPs on a daily basis. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 22:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

    Semi-protected for a period of 40 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - see how that goes. An indef, unfortunately, may need to be applied if this continues... —Anonymous Dissident 23:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

    Current requests for unprotection

    Shortcuts

    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.

    Chad Ocho Cinco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    unprotection , An administrator recently moved this page after move protection was placed on it because he deemed the dispute to have consensus. It seems only fair to unprotect it, as the protection policy specifically states that an administrator should not make any changes on a protected page unless oustanding circumstances exist (which they do not here)..Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

    Declined Although I disagree with the admin for moving the page, I don't feel completely right about unprotecting it at this time. I have a feeling that there is still a dispute and the article will get moved back by someone else. Also, there are other places where one can review an administrative action (which this officially was) such as WP:AN/I. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 03:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
    I can imagine calls about administrator abuse are regularly ignored, and probably not dealt with much anyway if they're not. I will opt out of that route. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

    Current requests for edits to a protected page

    Shortcut

    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.

    Misplaced Pages:Citation templates (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Linking of dates is no longer encouraged in MOSNUM. However, these links are at present institutionalised within the above templates but should be all delinked. I am referring specifically to the 'accessdate' field, which links the ISO-formatted dates to the relevant date/year articles - no other date fields are linked. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

    User:Kay Sieverding (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    My user page was locked even after I responded to earlier criticisms of it.

    This is my proposed alternative user page

    "I am 53, married for over 25 years, and hold two degrees from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. My masters degree is in city planning. I have no criminal record and, although I was involved in unsuccessful civil litigation, no rule 11 c. 6 order was ever issued against me, I was never involved in a summary judgment hearing, and I was never involved with a jury trial. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kay Sieverding (talk • contribs) 17:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

    Seems like this should be an unprotection request. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 21:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
    Declined From what I can see, the page is not protected, nor are you blocked, thus I believe you are able to make th eedit by yourself. If there is another reason for this, please let me know. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 21:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
    I think the request is related to this ANI thread. caknuck ° is geared up for football season 14:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    Palestinian right of return (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    semi-protect. Daily edit warring by IP range 86.108.nnn.nnn. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - Please try and enter into discussion with the user regarding this, however. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

    Right of return (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    semi-protect. Daily edit warring by IP range 86.108.nnn.nnn. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - Please try and enter into discussion with the user regarding this, however. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

    List of Soul Reapers in Bleach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    full protection Dispute, There is heavy, daily edit warring over a bunch of stuff between IPs and registered editors and amongst the registered editors over spelling, where certain characters should go, etc. The arguments may be lame, but until this page is protected, I suspect people are going to continue to ignore the attempts at discussion over the stuff still missing consensus..-- ] (] · ]) 21:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

    Fully protected Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

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

    temporary full protection Vandalism, IP vandalism.NJGW (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

    Toronto Blue Jays (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 20:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

    Virginia in the American Civil War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    User:North_Shoreman, if you review his edits on this (and many other pages) is systematically working his POV across many American Civil War topics on slavery, slavery issues, etc. In fact, he seems obsessed on the topic, to the detriment of normative and appropirate level of detail for articles, pasting strange off-the-wall obscure quotes, which are not even properly formatted. On this page, as a member of both the Civil War and Virginia task forces, I have justs started to work on framing and reorganizing the article and bringing it up to another level. This user lapses into meaningless and trivial edit-wars, often working with another user partner (that could possibly be the same person). Please lock this page at my last edit which deleted much of the extraneous material put on here by North Shoreman, and leave it locked for a couple of days or so, just to cool this fellow off. Please review my user page and pages created list to verify my contributions to historical pieces on Virginia and Civil War history topics. Thanks, sincerely, Grayghost01 (talk) 04:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

    Grayghost has ownership and POV issues. Check out his/her eforts at User talk:Grayghost01#Neo-Yankee vandalism and Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#COI on sensitive issues and articles for the American Civil War for background. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    PS Not to mention the clear POV that he announces on his own user page at User:Grayghost01#Son of Confederate Veterans where he states “I owe it to them to help get the story straight for posterity. For them, the war was about defending the home and farm, but that was not successfully done, and the ravage done is unspeakable. History must record deeds accurately as they were, and not as re-lived through the fantasies of the dishonorable few among the victors, who defy the terms of Grant.” Of course, “the dishonorable few” that Ghost disagrees with on the Virginia page are material he deleted sourced to Pulitzer Prize winning historian James McPherson and Bancroft Prize winning historian Edward Ayers. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    Declined Obviously a content dispute! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


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

    semi protect through election on November 4. IP vandalism and WP:SOAP. Student7 (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. I'm loathe to stretch it out any further than that. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

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

    indefinite create-protection , Recreated three times, all G11 advertising..Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 20:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

    Creation protected caknuck ° is geared up for football season 20:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    This is clearly a bad move. The page was indeed spam and should be speedy deleted. But salting the page makes no sense: it's a fairly well-known piece of software, has gotten reviews in mainstream PC magazines and could probably be the subject of a short but decent and informative article. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    I have restored & stubified the article, and have included the ref you provided. Good save, P.T. caknuck ° is geared up for football season 21:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

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

    full-protect. Sock evading the block for months already. –Howard the Duck 16:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

    Note: article currently semi-protected. –Howard the Duck 16:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    Declined. I can't, at first glance, see any evidence of sockpuppetting here. There are other channels for this - please see Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets or WP:AIV for blatant cases. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


    File:TBN-Crest_Blockletters.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    I believe that this page was improperly protected, as the admin who protected it was involved in a dispute over fair use rationales in the image and protected the image only after his version of the fair use rationales was created. If the image was to be protected, it should have been protected in the state it was in before the discussion began.

    Another user involved in the discussion requested that the image be unprotected, but the admin refused, instead redirecting the request here.

    The discussion that led to the protection was Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#One fairuse image = 50+(+?) articles using said image?, and a comment by User:Dragon695 under the subheading "Feel free to revert" specifically caused the protecting admin to suspect that an edit war was imminent. I saw nothing in the conversation to justify that belief.

    My intent is to restore the fair use rationales for full-service stations only, and only those with significant history, and to use the image in those stations' articles, as TBN stations do not employ their own logo, but rather use the network logo for identification.

    Several administrators have participated in the discussion, and therefore, should refrain from ruling in this request. Their positions taken are identified as pro: favoring deletion of FURs, con: opposed to deletion of FURs, and dnd: did not declare a position.

    Identified as administrators User:Seicer (pro), User:Ultraexactzz (dnd), User:Gonzo fan2007 (pro), User:Firsfron (con), User:Future Perfect at Sunrise (pro), User:Tyrenius (con), User:Black Kite (pro), User:Masem (pro), User:Bearcat (con), User:MBisanz (pro), User:Wizardman (pro)

    Believed to be administrators, but have not explicitly identified themselves as such: User:A Man In Black (pro), User:Zscout370 (pro)

    Believed not to be administrators, but should refrain from ruling if they are: User:293.xx.xxx.xx (prodnd), User:CharlotteWebb (pro), User:Baseball Bugs (dnd), User:Ed Fitzgerald (con), User:Mrschimpf (con), User:Nagle (con), User:Dragon695 (con), User:Neutralhomer (con)

    dhett 10:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

    Both User:A Man In Black and User:Zscout370 are administrators. seicer | talk | contribs 15:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
    Not unprotected for now, please resolve the issue that has led to the protection before requesting unprotection. Stifle (talk) 16:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
    Comment: Just wanted to make it clear I am not an administrator, so there is no confusion :) - NeutralHomer • Talk 17:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
    Comment: The reason I had requested the unprotect is that I believe that the protection was without basis and the protecting administrator has refused to discuss it on his talk page; instead, directing comments here. I do not believe his actions constituted good faith, and do not believe that any resolution can be reached, other than his will being imposed on the community. I request that the action to uphold the protection be reconsidered. dhett 18:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
    Actions that are supported by the vast majority of administrators, including the subset you identified above. Not surprisingly, those editors who have not comprehended NFCC#8 or LOGO are against this. Shocking. The reason I declined to discuss this further on my talk page is that it is at four locations already, and that RFPP is the approperiate venue for this. seicer | talk | contribs 21:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
    There is no lack of comprehension on our part. You have provided no evidence of violation, other than your opinion. dhett 21:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

    Comment I strongly protest Dhett comments that I am pro-anything and demand a full explanation what rationale they assumed to put that assumption forward. For the record, I merely asked a query (which would put it as undecided/neutral) and offered a compromise solution to the matter (which would put it as neutral). --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

    My comments regarding User:293.xx.xxx.xx's opinion were in error. I revise his position to "did not declare" per his request and apologize for the misjudgment. Nevertheless, the roll call was not meant to pigeonhole anyone into any opinion, but rather to identify administrators who had commented on the AN/I issue as having a conflict of interest in this request, regardless of what their position was. dhett 05:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


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

    semi-protect. Time wasting from IP edits at the moment. --♦IanMacM♦ 16:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

    Semi-protected indefinitely. That article's been protected so many times it's easier to just leave it indef at this point. It can always be unlocked if needed. Hersfold 18:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


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

    temporary full protection. Political opponent continues to alter page with negative attacks including placing his name on the page as well as complete fabrications (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=David_Caprio&oldid=235490170). 72.195.128.189 (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Stifle (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

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

    semi-protect. An IP editor, is using two SPA IPs, 217.43.204.131 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 86.157.53.200 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to edit war over inclusion of a sourced claim that I questioned and another user subsequently legitimately removed previously. The IP is likely banned user Rabidfoxes (talk · contribs), so persuasion to register is desirable, given the user's history of socks and COI. MickMacNee (talk) 14:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

    Declined — semi-protection is not used to deal with edit warring, and there is not sufficient recent disruption to justify protection at this time. Stifle (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

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

    temporary full protection Dispute, There was a consensus vote on the image to use for this write up. A vote was called. The vote was 2-1. The user caspian blue however has not respected the consensus vote and is making unilateral changes. I request temporary page protection until this user can understand the results of the vote. Thanks..Mindme (talk) 03:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

    The user who attempted to do the same thing here as falsely accusing me and another editor who does not agree with the usage of his images, of doing vandalism. Rather he was blocked for his disruptive behaviors including 3RR violation on August 20th. There is no consensus to use his image and WP:Ownership is his issue. The user completely ignored my opinion with his own "policy" as well as having resorting to personal attacks against me (my English and accusing "vandalism"). He just reverted my edit to include his image, so this request is nothing but another gaming the system.--Caspian blue (talk) 03:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    It is not true at all I completely ignored your opinion. I've clearly documented on the talk page nearly every change that was made was in agreement with your opinion. The image is mine, sure, but again those interested in this write up have clearly voted in favor of it. I've removed three other images that were also mine. I've noted several times I have a very hard time following your english and I'm usually forced to guess at what you're trying to argue. You may be insulted by this but that is your business. I have to preface most responses by noting I can't follow your english so whatever I'm trying to comment on is frequently a guess at what you're trying to say. Warning you not to make unilateral changes when there is a majority vote, at this point, seems to me like vandalism. Could it be anything else? Anyway, it stands: we had a vote on images, you lost the vote, now you're making changes contrary to the vote. What can we do at this point? Mindme (talk) 12:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    My comment is based on the truth, and you said that I did not take a vote on the usage of the images yesterday which is also false. As you admit your personal attacks against me here, you was blatantly ridiculing my English which is no business with the discussion. That's why the discussion was off the main topic. Besides, you falsely label my edit and other's edit as "vandalism" which is also true. Given this situation, your warning has no warrant at all. Kbrean also opposed to use your poor image (not 3 images, essentially 2 images) If some people other than Badagnani who has been disputing with me for other Korean related articles say reasonable rational and agree with you, that would be a consensus. 2:1 in the situation is not a consensus at all. The consensus at that time is only to use "gallery" section. Your report is also another evidence of your gaming the system. --Caspian blue (talk) 14:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    The situation at the "Discussion" page (and regarding reverts of the article itself) is completely out of control, and protection probably is warranted, due primarily to User:Caspian blue's habitual manner of discussion, which is always highly (and unnecessarily) inflammatory. Badagnani (talk) 04:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    The user has been wiki-stalking me ever since I joined in Misplaced Pages and been warned for such behaviors countless times. Ironically, badagnani has tried to be wiki-lawyering. The user also was in dispute with Buk (drum) yesterday without providing any sources . The user's comment seems to take advantage of this dispute.--Caspian blue (talk) 04:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Misplaced Pages does not work on voting. Stifle (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

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

    Restore to pre-existing consensus version. Full rationale underneath the (so far unacted-upon) editprotected (thus this RFPP request), at Template talk:Sic#Why superscript?. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 18:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

    Anyone home? This'll take 30 seconds to fix... — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 06:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
    Declined There is no need to use {{editprotected}} and request here. Also, the template change is controversial and needs consensus before changes {{sic}} is used on many pages, and thus needs more discussion for a change like this. Also, this is a volunteer project; we are not here to serve your needs and we have our own lives, and thus there is no need to ask if anyone is home. Issues will be addressed when someone cares to address it. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 21:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)