Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Katefan0 (talk | contribs) at 15:24, 18 April 2006 (→{{La|Unreal Championship 2: The Liandri Conflict}}: civility please). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Editing of this page by new or unregistered users is currently disabled. See the protection policy and protection log for more details. If you cannot edit this page and you wish to make a change, you can submit an edit request, discuss changes on the talk page, request unprotection, log in, or create an account.

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.

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

Semi-Protection - Anonymous IP addresses (but sometimes registered users) keep vandalising by replacing content or adding text on the article such as "Green day rox" or "Green day sucks", or just random stuff that should not be there. Wikipeedio 14:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Authorship and Date of the Synoptic Gospels and of Acts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-Protection - Anonymous editors keep trying to remove citation requests (the citeneeded template), despite the heavy bias and very non-mainstream nature of the content. Clinkophonist 12:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Nil by Mouth (charity) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection - this article is suffering repeated attack, all from anon IP addresses. Presumably it has been linked to somewhere with an encouragement to edit it. This vandalism has been going on over the last 24 hours and shows no sign of abating. A temporary semi-protection will hopefully put a stop to it and the vandals will get bored. —Whouk (talk) 10:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Judging from the content, this may be related to the Rangers F.C request below. —Whouk (talk) 10:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

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

full-protection as there is no consensus in discussion to support the new changes by Minglex. Reading the discussion it is clear that a large amount of people object to Minglex's changes. Still Sam and Minglex continue to impose the new version. Suggest full protect original version until there is consensus for the new version. This is a heated argument and it will cool down the revert war. Clivefan 09:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I support full protection until the CheckUser request has gone through and this is sorted out. --Sam Blanning 12:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Protected. --Syrthiss 12:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

G8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I suggest semi-protection be applied to this article which has been subject to repeated replacement of a web-link for the 2006 G8 Summit in Russia "http://en.g8russia.ru/" with a spam (domain squatter) web domain link "http://www.g8stpetersburg.com". Three separate IP addresses have been used so far to repeatedly commit that vandalism (70.28.15.28 (talk · contribs), 70.25.212.241 (talk · contribs), 70.25.211.182 (talk · contribs)) - the new addresses have come up as the old ones are blocked. Anonymous edits currently make up almost 50% of the article history for this month, but only one of those edits was not reverted as either vandalism or wrong information. —GrantNeufeld 04:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

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

I suggest semi-protection be applied to this article, which has been subject to 10+ malicious edits in the last three days mostly by unidentified users. Nbettencourt 02:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Calair (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Requesting semi-protection for my user and talk pages due to ongoing vandalism (part of an anon stalker's vendetta against Xtra). Other editors have been doing a sterling job of reverting the vandal's efforts and deleting the more defamatory edits altogether, but it's getting rather tiresome. Calair 01:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure. · Katefan0/poll 01:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --Calair 01:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Requesting semi-protection. High levels of vandalism, mainly due to UEFA inquest into sectarianism for which Rangers were found not giulty. Cdmstewart 22:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. · Katefan0/poll 23:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Cheers Cdmstewart 23:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:British TOCs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Full protection. There is an edit war over whether or not train operators in Northern Ireland should be included or not. There is discussion on talk but this is apparently not going fast enough for some people. See also Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 April 6#Template:British TOCs. Thryduulf 22:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

List of unrecognized accreditation associations of higher learning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Full protection. Page has been reverted 13 times in the last day and a half. Various content disputes involving five or six editors including myself (I've reverted twice). I don't want to see anyone violate 3R and although there is discussion on the talk page not all editors are participating. I think a cooling off period might be helpful at this point, hopefully leading to resolution of some of the issues -- JJay 13:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this quite needs protecting yet. Leave another request if it gets worse. · Katefan0/poll 21:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Semi-protection We need some help here. We are having troubles with suspected sockpuppets of User:Hipi_Zhdripi. Same old story, he runs out of arguments, logs out and then reverts to what he considers "the right version" and removing huge chunks of content and crippling links to maps. He is thinking he can avoid a 3RR block this way (he got blocked before). The thing is his mastering of English language is so basic, he isn't certainly fooling anyone but himself.

Please have a look at the history of contributions for the Kosovo, Serbia and Serbia and Montenegro articles.

He has recently vandalised the Serbia article too and issued threats (well, a bit hard to understand but they definitely sound like threats to me) to User:HolyRomanEmperor

I ran an ARIN check on the IP addresses and all resolve to the same ISP. He has also admitted it was Hipi Zhdripi in a few of the edit summaries, anyway (see this).

I will maybe list him in the 3RR noticeboard later on, though I cannot see the point as the dynamic IP addresses seem to change quite a lot and a block on his username would not affect his unlogged edits.

In the meantime, I feel forced to request to have those three articles sprotected till he calms down. Thanks in advance.

Regards, --Asterion 20:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. · Katefan0/poll 20:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Katefan0, he is insulting people now in the talk page. Is it possible to extend the semi protection to the talk pages for the three articles too? Thanks. --Asterion 21:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Semi-protection We need some help here. We are having troubles with suspected sockpuppets of User:Hipi_Zhdripi. Same old story, he runs out of arguments, logs out and then reverts to what he considers "the right version" and removing huge chunks of content and crippling links to maps. He is thinking he can avoid a 3RR block this way (he got blocked before). The thing is his mastering of English language is so basic, he isn't certainly fooling anyone but himself.

Please have a look at the history of contributions for the Kosovo, Serbia and Serbia and Montenegro articles.

He has recently vandalised the Serbia article too and issued threats (well, a bit hard to understand but they definitely sound like threats to me) to User:HolyRomanEmperor

I ran an ARIN check on the IP addresses and all resolve to the same ISP. He has also admitted it was Hipi Zhdripi in a few of the edit summaries, anyway (see this).

I will maybe list him in the 3RR noticeboard later on, though I cannot see the point as the dynamic IP addresses seem to change quite a lot and a block on his username would not affect his unlogged edits.

In the meantime, I feel forced to request to have those three articles sprotected till he calms down. Thanks in advance.

Regards, --Asterion 20:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. · Katefan0/poll 20:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Serbia and Montenegro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection We need some help here. We are having troubles with suspected sockpuppets of User:Hipi_Zhdripi. Same old story, he runs out of arguments, logs out and then reverts to what he considers "the right version" and removing huge chunks of content and crippling links to maps. He is thinking he can avoid a 3RR block this way (he got blocked before). The thing is his mastering of English language is so basic, he isn't certainly fooling anyone but himself.

Please have a look at the history of contributions for the Kosovo, Serbia and Serbia and Montenegro articles.

He has recently vandalised the Serbia article too and issued threats (well, a bit hard to understand but they definitely sound like threats to me) to User:HolyRomanEmperor

I ran an ARIN check on the IP addresses and all resolve to the same ISP. He has also admitted it was Hipi Zhdripi in a few of the edit summaries, anyway (see this).

I will maybe list him in the 3RR noticeboard later on, though I cannot see the point as the dynamic IP addresses seem to change quite a lot and a block on his username would not affect his unlogged edits.

In the meantime, I feel forced to request to have those three articles sprotected till he calms down. Thanks in advance.

Regards, --Asterion 20:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

WMC has semi'ed. · Katefan0/poll 20:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The Gadget Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection - since the television show has gone on air which included an article on Misplaced Pages, several anomyonous IP users have vandalised or deleted the page. Because of the volume of traffic caused by the programmes article on Misplaced Pages, reverting is becoming difficult. -- tghe-retford 19:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. · Katefan0/poll 20:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Semi-protection -- Several anon IPs are frequently making blatantly POV edits without any discussion or explanation, resulting in edit warring. A few other editors and I are trying to encourage deliberation, but to no avail. -- WGee 18:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection -- Overtly subjective material is constantly being added making maintaining this article very hard. Local elections are going to be held in the UK soon and it would seem that people are editing the BNP article with politically motivated objectives in mind. Protection until the elections have been held would be helpful to ensure the validity and objectivity of this article. Paul 19:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Paul8046

Reluctant semi-protection -- joint nomination and I should point out that this is not a pre-emptive application, but a reaction to a number of bad faith non-neutral edits from various sides of the debate. Robdurbar 20:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute to me, primarily involving one IP user. You should try WP:AN/3RR reports before resorting to protection. · Katefan0/poll 20:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Semi-pretection — Multiple anonymous IPs are repeatedly vandalizing this article, causing a revert war that shows no sign of stopping. This could probably be stopped with simple semi-protection. --Digital Watches 06:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Not enough activity today to protect. · Katefan0/poll 20:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Semi-pretection — Various anon IP's repeatedly vandalizing page—over 20 times in past few days. Using clever tactics such as inserting misinfo at one IP, waiting a few hours, then vandalizing with another, thus causing the misinfo to become the version reverted to. --TreyHarris 21:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't look frenzied enough today to semiprotect. · Katefan0/poll 20:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Semi-protection -- As noted before, there seems to be a range of anon IPs attacking Apple Computer-related pages tonight. --Doug (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks to have dropped off today. · Katefan0/poll 20:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Semi-protection -- page is the current target of banned user Gibraltarian via anon sock-puppets, attempting to derail a delicate content compromise. -- Gnetwerker 19:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere near enough to semiprotect. · Katefan0/poll 20:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Anon vandal repeatedly attacking page. Vabdal posts on talk page, but only in abusive fashion. Switch 15:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I blocked the IP 48 hours for vandalism. · Katefan0/poll 20:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Semi-protection due to anonymous vandals. McPhail 15:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Not really enough activity today for a semiprotect. · Katefan0/poll 20:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

The anon vandals are back now semiprotection has been lifted. Previous semiprotections (20 - 22 March, 26 March - 3 April, 5-14 April) were all followed by similar anon vandalism. Another period of semi-protection requested if this keeps up. SP-KP 12:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Dbiv semi'ed. · Katefan0/poll 21:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Requesting semi-protection. Continuous slow-revert-war/repeated-vandalism. 67.172.194.15 (talk · contribs) seems unwilling to enter into any meaningful discussion about the issue. My hope is that if its' semi-protected the user will listen to reason. Thanks, ---J.Smith 06:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Semiprotection isn't used in content disputes. · Katefan0/poll 21:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Unreal Championship 2: The Liandri Conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I played this game many times, saw this article was dying of data. I decided to feed it will data. The more information I add the more I am encourage by meself..without any body helping me. Now some stupid annon came, saying the article was confusing, and evening going to the clean up page and complaing that I am adding information, I am going crazy. I mean, what is the point of all that? You see something that is wrong, it is your duty to fix it nor crying out loud!
Now User:RandyWang decided to fix the taged article {confusing}. I do accept it, but I don't clearly accept, people who don't even know much or nothing about the game and deleting some useful information and saying they are opionions. RandyWang choose to say the article was like a game manual, fine I deleted all game manual sections. RandyWang have been making some changes to this article which I disapprove!

• He complained about the grammar and mistakes I used, and he fixed them. Which he deleted some facted information
• He deleted all useful sections such as:

Critics and Graphics Engine

• He kept on telling me that I am using plagerism on a copyrighted text I got from a website.

When I clearly sited my source, I even putted down that, the information below are gotten from the website, more can be found in that source. The worst of all, saying the website which explains about graphics card. It as nothing to do with the game, when clearly all details talks about the damn game!

Anyway, even if I do copied some text, why are is he having a go at the article for? Because some wiki articles do have some copied text available, even some article he contributed in!

Please just lock this article for a while, because I wanna sort this thing out in the talk page, I am just sick of some fools in this damn wikiland, acting as if they know all, when they are clearly wrong! And please...while you are at it, please bring someone who is more noticable in Unreal games, that person might also help sort out this problem.
Because you can't have some idiot that doesn't know all about the Solar System, adding data, they only thing that people is useful to the article is correcting redlinks, grammar, ton ect!

>x<ino 00:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks to me like RandyWang's edits are spot on. Remember that noone has ownership over any Misplaced Pages articles, and every time you click save Misplaced Pages informs you that If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. No offense to you, but if you're not a native English speaker then it might be best if you accepted copyedits a little more graciously -- his edits look good to me, while yours are a little idiosyncratic. · Katefan0/poll 01:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't care if english is my 10th language or I own wikipedia. This needs sorting out. Because the guy is doing a good job, but still the job he is doing is not flawless. Because there are some twitch and mistakes being made within his edits. And it is my job to keep an article a fact. And if you don't lock this article and sort this out, it will just be mercilessly destoryed. Because lately I have been getting pissed off over this article thing in wikipedia, just trying to deal and cooperative with you dumb fools.

>x<ino 15:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Please remember that Misplaced Pages has rules about treating people with basic civility and avoiding personal attacks. Comments like "you dumb fools" won't get you far here. · Katefan0/poll 15:24, 18 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.

The Game (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Currently semi-protected. Originally fully-protected for a {{deletedpage}} template, the protection was changed to semi, and the article is currently going under an AfD. It is currently being revised by a batch of editors, and seems to be semi-protected for no reason. The history reveals no vandalism. Requesting unprotection. ~ PseudoSudo 03:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I asked Stifle (the protecting admin) if he has any outstanding reason for it to still be semiprotected, so lets see what he says. Syrthiss 15:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

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

I was called in as a mediator, but the controversy seems to have died down. Let's try unprotected. Sdedeo (tips) 17:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. · Katefan0/poll 21:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

May I have my talks page unlocked please? ViriiK 17:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure. · Katefan0/poll 21:08, 17 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.