Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:27, 7 June 2005

• ]

This page is for requesting that a page or image be protected or unprotected.

If you would like to request a page be protected or unprotected, please list it (and the date) at the top of the current requests section below, with the reason that it needs protecting or unprotecting. Before you do so, however, consult Misplaced Pages:Protection policy for details on the purpose of protecting pages and the guidelines concerning page protection.

After a page has been protected, it is listed on Misplaced Pages:Protected page with a short description of ten words or fewer indicating why it was protected. Further discussion should take place on the Talk page of the article. This is not the place to discuss or dispute articles, users, or policies.

When submitting a request for page unprotection, you may want to consider the reason given for protection at Misplaced Pages:Protected page (or lack thereof).

Please remove requests once they have been fulfilled or withdrawn.

Current requests

Please place new requests at the top.

Anarchism

Neutral point of view cannot be achieved - conflicting definition of "anarchism." Anarcho-socialist and anarcho-capitalist dispute will not allow a stable page. Ergo, a Wiki-style disambiguation page is offered. This way, both can have their preferred defs. Asking to protect the disambiguation page, rather than a partisan page. --Hogeye 04:27, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Justin Hall

Repeated vandalisms from IP 12.9.33.203, on both main and talk pages. Please protect these pages - some nasty personal attacks and objectionable additions are being made from this person. Thanks! --NightMonkey 00:05, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Jewish Task Force

User:24.193.128.76 is trying to make the JTF article into some sort of glorification brochureware. JTF is known, even by the ADL, to be a racist organization which a 2 minute google search or even a visit to their website will prove. Yet this user constatly removed the negative aspects of this ¨group¨, even going as far as calling JTF a ¨civil rights organziation¨!!!

Attempts in the discussion page have been fruitless. User:24.193.128.76 removes other users comments regarding JTF´s racist leanings and does nothing but make personal attacks and threats against the other editors. Mr MoJo 07:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I've protected the page, having first returned to a version without the editorial attacks. It's pretty bad, though, and certainly deserves its PoV tag. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:26, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anarchism

Requesting because User:Hogeye has made substantial edits and reverts that do not reflect the agreed-upon scope and purpose of the article that came out of the last dispute resolution process. I've been referring this user to the talk pages archives and they have not responded except by (ironically) repeating the same arguments that did not fly in the past. See Talk:Anarchism/Archive16 to see the past dispute resolution process. --albamuth 01:18, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

David Bret

This is a necessary second request for page protection following further repeated edits by the same anonymous Vandal. This page protection is necessary pending resolution through my Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration. Ted Wilkes 17:03, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wilkes seems to have unclean hands in his disputes, as he's guilty of violating the 3-revert policy, deleting others' critical comments from this page, and treating the fact of another user making edits anonymously as if it were a policy violation itself. *Dan* 17:23, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, Ted Wilkes is identical with users NightCrawler and JillandJack who are, or repeatedly were, under a Misplaced Pages hard ban. See User:DW. He has again deleted comments by two different users from this page.

Protected until dispute sorted out on Talk page. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:44, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's worrying that Ted Wilkes (talk · contribs) has tried to delete other editors' comments from this page, describing it in his edit summary as "Removed vandalism" (). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:42, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ted is currently on a 24 hour timeout for violating the 3RR with his comment removal on this page. His opposite number should also be banned, but I haven't done this as I don't understand how to calculate an IP range (someone may have done this already, but see WP:AN3 for details). Thryduulf 08:06, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tsushima Islands

I'm now asking for a second unprotection to this page. While the first time it was protected to stop an edit war (I was not involved), the second time was protected due to a NPOV factual dispute. It seems to have simmered down, however. Anybody is free to visit Talk:Tsushima Islands.

Mr Tan 16:00, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)Mr Tan

As soon as the page was unprotected last time, Mr Tan leapt in and made a string of mostly controversial edits, hence its re-protection. His increasingly peculiar and confrontational messages on the Talk page don't instil confidence that he'll behave differently if it's unprotected again, and nor do some of his recent comments:

• "This is causing in the increasing number of articles needing attention, and consensus, to me, is not perfectly reliable."
• "If all of you want consensus, but the thing is wrong itself in reality, this makes wikipediaimperfect". --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:50, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That is what you think; others may not necessarily have such difficulties like you. Anybody is free to ask questions on my talk page if you have any doubts about my comments; otherwise ignore his messages.

I have already made my comments at Talk:Tsushima Islands, but since they have no further comments, despite the fact that I have been strongly encouraging them to post any points that they have doubts. I have in fact, posted some of them, but it seems that they do not have any further comments with the remainder, assuming that they have agreed with me. With that, I suggest unprotection. Questions, however, will still be fully entertained.

Mr TanMr Tan 07:08, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Feces

Anon and User:Eyeon keep adding a rather revolting picture of human feces to this article. Nohat 23:36, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Protected by User:CesarB.

Papal Tiara

Anonymous vandal (68.45.81.193) is repeatedly vandalizing the page. Frankchn 15:35, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• No need, the vandal has been blocked: 15:36, 4 Jun 2005 Jtdirl blocked "User:68.45.81.193" with an expiry time of 24 hours (constant revertion of featured article.) . Thryduulf 15:47, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gasoline/Petrol

War going on over UK/US spelling. I changed the name to Gasoline/Petrol which will satisfy nobody, but it should at least end hostilities. ℬastique▼ 23:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In that case, does it still need protecting? --khaosworks 01:09, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

"Gasoline/Petrol" just looks horrid, and I notice that it puts the form you favour before the form the other party favours (which is where the article was before you moved it). I've moved it back. (And don't use "Protected" as an edit summary when it's not protected, please). Proteus (Talk) 08:31, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Would it benefit from a page move protection? Thryduulf 12:11, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Elvis Presley

Repeated vandalism by User:80.141.209.175 and 23 other IP addresses whose only contribution is to three articles, each of which is interconnected. I have made a request for action for Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Ted Wilkes 21:42, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. "One of the things that makes the Misplaced Pages great is that anybody can contribute." What's wrong with contributing only to a handful of articles under a dynamic IP address? Please note that adding some comment on the present page is not vandalism. But constantly deleting these comments, as you did, IS repeated vandalism! -- User:80.141.226.156

Protected. smoddy 21:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you.

Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection

Perhaps this page itself, ironically enough, needs protection... Ted Wilkes and some anonymous multiple-IP user have been edit-warring over comments under David Bret AND Nick Adams, and both are in violation of the three-revert policy. *Dan* 20:40, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

I've removed that section from this page, hopefully that will help. Thryduulf 21:02, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. This was a good idea. I don't know why user Ted Wilkes frequently deleted my comment.

Wilkes is continuing to vandalize this page, now deleting comments from the Elvis Presley entry. *Dan* 17:10, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Birmingham

Seemingly endless edit war between several contributors, protecting it for a few days might let things clam down. Protection has already been requested in an edit summary . G-Man 20:37, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is talk of an RfC at Misplaced Pages talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board but at least until then I agree that a cooling off period would help. Protected. Thryduulf 21:06, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hibernian F.C.

Has drawn attacks from this web board, should be reverted then protected. --BesigedB 15:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rdsmith4 as protected this page. Thryduulf 16:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Help:Contents

This page has been hijacked several times by User:218.102.21.186. He/she has also hijacked several other pages. 68.169.113.246 Talk to me, 68.169.113.246 My contributions 14:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The vandalism here doesn't look particularly bad, particularly for a high-profile page, and appears to be being reverted quickly as it is. Thryduulf 16:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen

I requested earlier that the article Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen be blocked to deal with vandalism. Less than 48 hours after BrokenSegue blocked the page, the vandals turned to the talk page of the article. They have started altering words in other people's comments there (even older comments). There were four or five acts of vandalism there today. This is not unprecedented in this talk page, but vandalism had been focused on the article itself. Now, I believe strongly that the attacks will turn to the talk page in full trottle (as I said, five attacks just today). Since there are no active discussions going on in the article, I request that the talk page be blocked for a while, the same as the article, otherwise I fear the vandals will not move on. Regards, Redux 22:36, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am hesitant to protect discussion pages (as I have said before). I'll add it to my watchlist and will actively block the IPs. Let's see if that works. This link is Broken 06:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

5K_Celebration

Page is experiencing persistant vulgar vandalism, please protect. wackyvorlon

Eleanor Roosevelt

An anonymous user continually removes the paragraph on ER's relationship with Lorena Hickok. His entry of 5/31 reveals quite clearly that his reasons for doing so violate NPOV. An edit war is brewing and I'd like to cut it off. Assistance in resolving this would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Jliberty 12:25, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

I've withdrawn this request as things have settled down. Thanks. Jliberty 15:05, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

List of transgendered people

An anonymous AOL editor from VA (205.188.117.*, 64.12.117.5, 152.163.101.5) has been systematically removing three entries on the list over the last few months, by covering over the deletions by adding other edits in the article. The individual has now recently reverted to the old tactic of strategically placing internal notes within the article to hide the three entries from public viewing. Megan1967 10:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tides of Blood

ScrewedThePooch (talk · contribs) insists on adding non-encyclopedaic material to Tides of Blood, and has reverted my edits to remove it as vandalism. Talrias (t | e | c) 23:44, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Let's see if he does it again before protecting. BrokenSegue

Turkish Cypriot Genocide

Argyrosargyrou (talk · contribs) has been revertign to a very PoV version of the page, including a VfD notice placed there as an editing gambit (the VfD is over and the page passed). Argyrosargyrou's view (here and elsewhere) is that anyone who disagrees with him is a Turkish propagandist, probably in the pay of the Turkish government (see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Argyrosargyrou), so discussion is impossible. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:36, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

He's now reverted again, leaving the page not only a flimsy mess, but with a PoV and a (false) VfD notice. I can't revert again, so could whoever protects the page check, and if you don't want to revert the page entirely, at least remove the VfD notice? Thanks. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:54, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Bereans

Users Onlytofind, Raygirvan and DJ Clayworth take turns removing my edit. I have provided authoritative source. They show bias toward a website based in the Philippines. In my wildest suspicion, this website is using wikipedia to appear legitimate, as wikipedia entries appear in other websites such http://www.explore-society.com. Emico 07:06, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• You are being delusional to the point of libel, by accusing the three of us by being the same person who has nothing better to do then "gang up" on you. Have you ever realized that your personal beliefs and opinions are not welcome here and are not authoritative? You don't like me posting my personal opinions, what makes you think yours are canonical? Start a webpage or a blog, but don't vandalize the Misplaced Pages. If you want to write a smear job about another religion because they say bad things about yours, do it somewhere else!--Onlytofind 08:11, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• In addition to having the page protected. I'm requesting to have it protected with the 17:24, May 29, 2005 version of the article. Since it is the version that has legitimate sources, and hasn't had most of the article omitted. Please note that Emico's actions on the article and Misplaced Pages has led other users to create Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Emico. --LBMixPro 08:36, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

• The article was intended to trace the history of the 'Berean' sect from when it was founded by John Barclay up to the current. I noted on the article that one of the doctrines that protestant kept was the trinity doctrine. They removed this and my source link from Easton's bible dictionary about the trinity and added a source 'sola scriptura', a protestant doctrine aimed against catholics. That is when I noticed their bias. 'Sola scriptura' meant that the sole basis for their faith was the bible. The protestants believe in the trinity. Eason's bible dictionary states that the trinity is not biblical. LBMixPro, Onlytofind, Raygirvan and DJ Clayworth together removed my contributions and kept their bias view on this article. Emico 15:13, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Erano Manalo

The same problem on the Felix Manalo page. User emico continuously places a baseless claim disputing the factuality of this article and on the talk page, continuously complains about wanting this article to be written in a way flattering to the subject of this article. --Onlytofind 04:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

If you would just cite your sources, I would'nt question the factuality of your entries. After all, your talking about a living leader of a religious organization. If you say something deragatory and unfounded, you could get sued. Emico 07:06, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• Instead of complaining about inaccurate information, why don't you bring it to others' attention what you feel is inaccurate so it can be changed? You need to read LBMixPro's post on the INC talkpage about how there are no authoritative written sources. regarding the Iglesia ni Cristo or the Manalo family. What you obviously want is to turn that article into a flattering description of Mr. Manalo written according to the viewpoint of the INC, which is not in accordance with the policy of the Misplaced Pages. As for lawsuits, there is nothing on that page which I have contributed that cannot be proven and isn't neutral. If I were you, I would stop the hearsay and gossip about other people here before I find myself slapped with a libel lawsuit. --Onlytofind 08:16, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• • You stated "there are no authoritative written sources". Then, it should'nt bother you if I label the article to be without source. Emico 15:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Felix Manalo

User emico continuously places a baseless claim disputing the factuality of this article and on the talk page, continuously complains about wanting this article to be written in a way flattering to the subject of this article. --Onlytofind 04:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Same as above. Please cite your sources. Emico 07:06, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

anus

Recurring anon edits to insert a useless photograph, plus the odd disclaimer and anal-sex-related vandalism. Please protect until we can work this out formally, thank you. Jeeves 06:01, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

offtopic.com

Targeted for vandalism, on VfD. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:04, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Javier Solana

Persistent attempts to smuggle fundy extremist 666 references into the article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I am arguing that the one editor who is doing thishas in fact broken the 3RR rule, and clearly would if they edited the article in this way again today, so hopefully the article will not need protection. This editor has no support for his stance, SqueakBox 16:15, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Japanese war crimes

Please see the rambling, pure POV stuff at the head of the article. And the discussion of this at Talk:Japanese war crimes. Grant65 (Talk) 13:25, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Otacon

User from the 69.158.*.* IP range keeps adding a paragraph of information based on his own opinions. Despite numerous attempts to ask him to stop or at least explain his position on the talk page, he continues. Suggest leaving it up until he gives up. --Paul Soth 19:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I second the notion. I've sent a private message to the annonymous user that keeps vandalizing the article and so far, he has refused to cooperate. Jonny2x4 12:38, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

User:Smoddy has taken to repeatedly editing my user page against my wishes. He is involved in a silly little flamewar against me, along with User:Jguk. Blah, blah, the whole thing arose out of a survey about use of styles ("His Holiness" etc.) in WP articles. Smoddy has taken to repeatedly changing my characterization of the issue on my own user page (not even on User_talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, which would be bearable). It would really be easiest just to lock my user page for a little while (but at my version, not Smoddy's :-)), and let them at least carry out their "fatwa in a bottle" on other pages.

I did try adding the protected/vprotected tags myself (but they don't really do anything). But that's probably not the right procedure, since I'm not an admin. If someone can tell be the proper procedure, I would appreciate it. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:15, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

Update: With admonition, Smoddy and proxies seem to be leaving my page alone. SlimVirgin let me know that s/he would handle removing this request when appropriate (as an admin). But for others who stumble here, I withdraw the request. Btw, I've since figured out that {{vprotected}} isn't meant for regular users, only for admins (wouldn't it be nice if the WP software told you this?). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:09, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

There's probably no need for page protection, as Smoddy will violate 3RR if he reverts again, and I've warned him about it, so it's unlikely he'll pursue it. If he does, or if anyone else does on his behalf, I'll protect the page for you. SlimVirgin 20:25, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

I will also watch the page too. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

• Note, I have moved this request to its proper place, at the top of the page. Lulu, read WP:NPA. Calling jguk "boorish" is a personal attack, and any user is allowed to remove personal attacks. Of course, if I am really the demon you make me out to be (and I am not), then I would ignore the page protection and revert anyway. I removed the {{Vprotected}} notice because it was incorrect and misleading, and I was well within my rights. I request of you, Lulu, don't make unsubstantiated attacks on my character. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 20:28, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Allan Nairn, Amy Goodman, Isle of Youth, Suharto, Corporate media

Davenbelle has shown himself to be quite the obnoxious and uncompromising POV warrior. J. Parker Stone 06:49, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Premature. The same could be said for T.S. himself. -- Viajero 11:49, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I have fucking explained myself again and again, but you kids can't fucking compromise on anything less than anti-American tinged POV. J. Parker Stone 07:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

see: Misplaced Pages:Profanity — Davenbelle 07:54, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

AIDS conspiracy theories

Ongoing edit war over the inclusion of Template:TitleDisputed. I would protect but I reverted once and am mildly involved in the dispute. – ugen64 01:28, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)