Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:18, 21 September 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.

Only consider protection as an option that is necessary in order to resolve your problem and that the only solution that will assist in the solution of the problem is protection. Sometimes the problem will go away after a week or so.

After a page has been protected, it is listed on Misplaced Pages:Protected page with a short description 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).

Administrators: When you have fullfilled or rejected a request, please note your actions (or reasons for not acting) and remove the request. Leaving a note on the talk page of the article and/or on the talk page of the user(s) requesting protection might be good, as well.

Current requests for protection

Please place new requests at the top.

The Philips Phile

This was protected before, some sort of radio-fan edit war is again going on. No violations of three-revert yet, but it's just a matter of time. I couldn't care less about this article, but it is a pain in my patoose because it's constantly showing up in my watchlist with the same NPOV and largely irrelevent text. Please protect, and while you're at it, block the two fanboy/girls, Ullr and Payneos. Thank you. Wnissen 14:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

North Korea

This page is being continually vandalized with incorrect information about Bush's "Axis of Evil". I have detailed the problem on the Talk:North Korea page, but the same revert keeps being made by different (sockpuppet?) accounts. Sukiari 00:45, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

NOWClan

a user keeps posting wierd pics and makeing "nigger" comments. this is weird since the page has nothing to do with blacks. one user was CoreyLauze who added a wierd pic of a midget. please lock untill this guy loses interest--Jaysscholar 21:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

IP address 206.45.173.217 keeps adding a jason the nigger pic. what is going on here--Jaysscholar 21:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Looks like garden variety vandalism. I've warned the IP that seems to be repeat offending the most. If he ignores the warning, I'll block the IP for vandalism. · Katefan0 22:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Benjamín Urrutia

A persistent anonymous user keeps adding self-promotional material to the article. I believe that the anonymous editor is the subject of the article. I believe that because:

• the anonymous editor's IP address is from the Chicago Public Library.
• Benjamín Urrutia's "about the author" blurbs say that he lives in Chicago.
• The anonymous editor has provided ordering information that only he would know.
• To prevent the use of Misplaced Pages as a self-promotional outlet, please protect this version.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me like this anon is just adding some bibliographic information. How is that inappropriate? Also, you should be careful, Goethean, about how much you revert -- it looks like you may have violated WP:3RR, for which you can be blocked. Same for the IP of course. · Katefan0 21:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I consider this self-promotion, and akin to vandalism, so I didn't think that I would get blocked. True; he is only adding bibliographic info. But for some of it, ("Slanted Gloria") he is the only source of information. It doesn't show up on google apart from WP, and it has no ISBN. I have researched another entry, "Interview with Master Yoda", and it doesn't seem related to him. The rest of the journal article references can stay, but I would prefer that they didn't. I just dislike this sort of thing on principle, and thought that there would be broad agreement. --goethean ॐ 21:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really proposing any such thing, since it appears that this anon isn't talking at all... just wanted to offer a friendly reminder. Interesting; I didn't go any farther than looking at the way the information appeared on the page, but if you can't find any proof that they in fact exist then that would essentially be odd resume-padding. Has this person been to the talk page to discuss these sorts of edits before? · Katefan0 21:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but the discussion consists of him promoting himself. --goethean ॐ 22:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to protect the page in the hopes that it will draw him to the talk page to explain these odd articles that seem not to exist. But if it doesn't produce any discussions in a day or so I'll probably lift it again. Best · Katefan0 22:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I just listed this protection on WP:PP. --Tony Sidaway 17:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Tony! Mea culpa. · Katefan0 17:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

USC Trojans Football (from moves only)

User Brian Brockmeyer keeps moving this page to "Southern Cal Trojans football". This is a problem for the following reasons:

• As noted by TheRubal in the section at the bottom of the page, the official USC media guide specifically asks media sources to not use the name "Southern Cal" in reference to the university.
• The name of the article has been discussed on the talk page and a consensus has been reached at "USC Trojans Football", the user who keeps moving the page has not participated in the discussion.
• The current name is both unambiguous (the other USC with a football team does not call it the Trojans) and correct (in that all other pages that abbreviate "University of Southern California" in their title do so as "USC", example: USC School of Cinema-Television).

So far as I can tell, the only purpose of continually moving the page to "Southern Cal Trojans Football" is to antagonize USC football fans who, like the university athletics department, dislike the use of "Southern Cal" in reference to the university. Please protect this page from being moved (the content is not under dispute). -- Tyler 23:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Done. Sasquatcht|c 23:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Mohegan Sun

There is continuous vandalism by unregistered users including User:64.92.174.42, User:66.225.214.2 and User:213.171.218.205 who delete entire paragraphs without proper explanation and use of foul language in the edit summary including the use of words f**k, f**cker, s**thead etc.. They are blocked by the Misplaced Pages administrators but after their block ends they either use their previous IP address or move to a new IP address, Most likely an Anonymous Web Surfing or Proxy server and start vandalizing again without any regard. Misterrick 19:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC).

Protected. Will unprotect in 24-48 hours or on request. Carbonite | Talk 19:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

International Academy

The page is vandalized almost daily. I believe it is done by students, and User:202.122.69.82 is changing the page very often. I am not affiliated with the International Academy, and I am growing tired of reverting changes. Protecting the page is the last resort before I request it to be deleted. -- ReyBrujo 17:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

St. John's College, U. S.

Zenohockey, who is a student of St. John's, continues to delete an important section I have added which delineates various critiques of the St. John's educational philosophy. Carnaptime 17:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Charver

This page was a redirect to Charva, an article that was deleted as per vfd. The resolution of the vfd was to merge the content into the Chav article, and this redirect was altered to point at Chav accordingly.

An anonymous editor is repeatedly pasting the old, pre-vfd resolution content from Charva into Charver, despite requests to not do so. -- 15:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

St. John's College, U. S.

User:70.32.7.36 has repeatedly inserted a POV "Criticism" section, even after it's been deleted twice. The section was moved to the article's talk page until it can be brought up to par, but it keeps coming back. --zenohockey 05:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

History of the Internet

User:John Kenney says here on the talk page that he protected the article, but the protection seems not to have taken - perhaps he hit the "protect from moves only" box? I have put it back to the version he reverted to to protect it; can someone one please re-apply the protection? (I can't do it, I'm involved.) Thanks. Noel (talk) 04:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Protected (it should not be that controversial since you were only finishing what John Kenney intended, but I can understand you want to avoid possible conflicts about the protection). --cesarb 05:05, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes; I originally did just simply reset the protection myself, reasoning that I was simply implementing JK's action properly - but then I decided that I didn't want any possible complaint, so I decided to do it through here. Noel (talk) 05:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Maria Pia de Saxe Coburg Braganza

There are people in this page that change the authentic and original baptism name of the duchess Maria Pia of Braganza and insert as title of this page the name Hilda Toledano. Hilda Toledano was only a pseudonym name that she used when she wrote some of her novels and also a pseudonym that she used in particular in salazarist period for political problems (You can see also in this web page : http://www.projectedletters.com/vault/maria-pia/maria-pia-3/ ). Don' t exist other documents where we can see the name Hilda Toledano. She was knowledge as Maria Pia Saxe Coburg Braganza and in all the official documents of this woman the only used name was Maria Pia Saxe Coburg Braganza.(see http://www.theroyalhouseofportugal.org/html/pater.html ). So the attempt to change her name is only a fool the portoguese historical truth ! And this is also illegal . I ask to reintegrate the name Maria Pia Saxe Coburg Braganza as title of this article and instead Hilda Toledano redirect to Maria Pia Saxe Coburg Braganza.

The name of Maria Pia de Saxon Coburg Bragança is reported:

• in the definitive sentence of Sacra Romana Rota( http://www.theroyalhouseofportugal.org/portugues/srr1.htm ):The Apostolic Tribunal SACRA ROMANA ROTA declared the Dom Duarte Nuno request to cancel the name of HM the King Dom Carlos I, Maria Pia rightful father, from the certificate of Baptism of the Princess illegitimate and confirmed the complete validity of the act of Baptism and the paternity of Donna Maria Pia.
• This woman was ALWAYS called as HRH Dona Maria Pia de Saxon Coburg Bragança from Important istitutional Person as for example HM the King Alfonso XIII,king of Spain and and the Prince Alfonso Jaime de Borbon( http://www.theroyalhouseofportugal.org/html/alfonso.html ),by general Humberto Delgado( http://www.theroyalhouseofportugal.org/html/delgado.html ),Mario Soares ( http://www.theroyalhouseofportugal.org/html/letters.htm ),by gen. Francisco Franco and later by Felipe Polo Martinez-Valdes ( http://www.theroyalhouseofportugal.org/html/franco.html )and very other authorities...
• See these scanned images of parts of some books undaubtably confirming the identity of Donna Maria Pia as Royal Princess of Saxon Coburgo Gotha de Bragança, and her title of XXI Duchess of Bragançam and her role in the history of Portugal( http://www.theroyalhouseofportugal.org/html/testim.html )
• Dona Maria Pia died in Verona in 1995 as Maria Pia of Saxony Coburgo Gotha and Bragança and this is reported in the document demographic services in the city of Verona(Italy):( http://www.theroyalhouseofportugal.org/media/docs/batesimi_2526certificati/cert-morte.jpg )

Now please, can you inform me where can I see a document that identify this woman as "Hilda Toledano" so also I can understand your pretension to leave in this web page the name Hilda Toledano. In the contrary case this is a tentative of mystification of the historical truth. I attend your answer.Thanks. Manuel, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Repeating DELETED Request

Howabout, CesarB, Firestar, Katefano, All those e-mails I sent you BEGGING for page protection and this is how you address the issue? By pretending it wasn't me? Just consider the illogic of that! Who would want to be me? And who would ask for nothing except a little common consideration? Here I am again, doing what you ask, trying to play by your rules, coming to your talk page to give you more attention. But, no matter what I do or say, you refuse to protect my page so my friends cannot be stalked. You and your ilk are all just trolls who have no decency whatsoever. You just want to play games hiding behind your silly "policies." I hope someone does this to you someday and you get to enjoy the frustration you inflict on me and others. I pray that all who come to your sick site will see that you are just another bunch of trash and bash liars who have never done anything of value and are so jealous of anyone who has that you would rather believe and publish lies about them than speak the truth. I ask you for the fifth time, as politely and respectfully as I can in light of your tacky behavior, to protect my page or remove it.

I remain, Ashida Kim

There haven't even been any edits to the Ashida Kim article since the last time you asked for protection. The answer then was no, and it remains no, for all the same reasons. · Katefan0 03:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

We have been dealing with this fellow off and on for a while now. He started by objecting to the article written about him by some editors who apparently knew him from online martial arts forums, eventually he began treating Misplaced Pages as free advertising and a linkfarm for his ninja books. He says he doesn't want to be bothered to learn how things are done here, characterising what we do as "play(ing) games hiding behind your silly "policies."" I have suggested to him that he would attract more sympathy with respect instead of abuse, but we'll see. I've also suggested to him: "If you...still want the Ashida Kim page deleted, log on to your account at User:Ashida Kim and submit it to AfD yourself." My full reply to his latest message can be seen at Talk:Ashida Kim. --Fire Star 03:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Bob Dylan

This page was protected pending resolution of an editing dispute and RfC. It was unprotected today without explanation, by an admin not involved in the ongoing attempts (pretty much unsuccessful so far) to resolve the dispute. Leaving it unprotected right now is likely to lead to resumption of edit warring (and reverting to the previously protected page text would probably be appropriate). Monicasdude 23:13, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

It has been protected again. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 03:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I've unprotected. There doesn't seem to be much in the way of discussion except comments to the effect that yah yah this page is protected so you can't edit it, and you're stupid and your mother wears army boots. The RfC given as a pretext hasn't been edited in five days. It's been protected for 27 days in the past month so it's time to edit again. --Tony Sidaway 17:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Bollywood: References to Plagiarism

Both references to websites dedicated to plagiarism in the Indian movie industry are being continuously removed by two editors, Zora and Sunny S. I respect their love for these movies but that is clearly clouding their judgement and they are pushing their personal agenda by constantly removing these links.

The links in the "Accusations of Plagiarism" section. Linking to BollyCat.com and itwofs.com. Any neutral person reviewing these websites can easily judge how they are relevant to the plagiarisms section.

--H2d2 16:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

A new user, Sunny, arrived and made a long, reasoned argument that the Bollycat site would put up just any accusations, even if ridiculous, and that Misplaced Pages should not be linking to an inaccurate site. I had been reversing his deletion of the site, but he convinced me, and I deleted it. I strongly suspect that H2d2 is associated with the site in question, since he asked if we were deleting the site because the webmaster is Pakistani. How should we know the nationality of the webmaster? The itwofs.com link has not been deleted -- I removed it from the text of the article, but it's still there in the external links.

Bollycat was discussed on one of my favorite blogs, Sepia Mutiny, and they made the same comments re the site's inaccuracy: . Zora 17:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

The website has been featured in India's leading English daily, The Times of India , Boing Boing and Pakistan's PakTribune among various other media outlets, including the Independent Film Channel's news snippets. None of these reports have referred to the site being bogus or overly inaccurate. I can't believe one person's personal views are becoming such big of a hurdle in the inclusion of this website.

Oh, and just to clarify, Sepia Mutiny did indeed link to the site, not once but twice . Please review both of these entries, and let me know where exactly does the original author refer to the site's inaccuracy or even unliking of it. Zora is really just pushing her personal agenda here.

--H2d2 22:50, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't HAVE a personal agenda. When Sunny was deleting the site as an anon IP, I was reversing his changes. When he took a username and made a reasoned argument for the site's inaccuracy, I had to agree with him. He changed my mind. That is not a personal agenda. As for Sepia Mutiny -- see this discussion: Several regular users of this blog agreed that the site posts all accusations, reasonable or not, and that it was not reliable as a guide to plagiarism. I do not think that Misplaced Pages should prominently (in the text of the article!) recommend a site that is not accurate. IF the site were to change its format so that visitors could rank the reliability of the plagiarism accusations, it might become more reliable. I don't care how many times the site has been featured in articles or on blogs -- it has to be judged on its own merits. Zora 23:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Having seen many of the movies mentioned in the site in question, I can definitely say that it's allegations are mostly ridiculous. I find H2d2's continuous reverts , and insertion of the website promotion akin to spamming. Also, I left messages in the article talk page and H2d2's talk page requesting not to continue inserting the text, but regrettably, there has been no replies from him yet. --Ragib 02:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I am a contributor there just like I am one here. Please do no stretch the facts, or provide me with just ten percent of the movies listed to be "ridiculous allegations" out of the 300+ listed. I agree that there are may be 4 or 5 entries on that website that are a little far-fetched, but you can't base your judgement solely upon those and neglect the hundreds of other user submitted entries that are 99% correct. So, I'd call that minor inaccuracy, something every user submitting information resource, like for example Misplaced Pages, is prone to. I am not spamming, but defending my right to let people know how widely aceptable plagiarism is in Bollywood, something that you guys of course do not agree with and are thus doind whatever you can from this site appearing on this page. Zora, how the site is run has nothing to do with me. When the site is mentioned on the likes of the Independent Film Channel and leading papers, then it does have merits, and I don't think that you are at a higher judging post than the editors of these outlets. --H2d2 13:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you were really interested in "defending the right to let people know how widely acceptable plagiarism is in bollywood", you'd have added to that section. However, you seem to be hell-bent in keeping the following paragraph (which promotes the website):

A website dedicated to Bollywood plagiarism exists at BollyCat.com. The website catalogs hundreds of movies contributed by Bollywood fans that have allegedly been copied from Hollywood flicks.Accusations of plagiarism in filmi music (both in Hindi and other major regional languages like Tamil and Telugu) are discussed at ItwoFS.com. This website lists both the track in question and the alleged source and supplies relevant audio clips.

Let us know why you "Claim" that this is not a website advertisement. The paragraph before this promo-text discusses plagiarism quite well. You are not adding to that discussion at all, rather you are continuously promoting this website. Which leads me to question your motive here. Requests to discuss it in the article talk page have fallen into deaf ears, you are continuously reverting the advertisement back to the article. You also put a rather rude edit summary : Revert - I don't need to make edits anonymously. Get your head out of ur.., which is in violation of WP:CIVILITY. --Ragib 15:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Edit the text if you will, or move it to the bottom links. But removing the link based on individual judgement and disliking for the content is inappropriate, in the universal code of common sense. Oh and if I am "spamming", then your rude removals are nothing but vandalism. --H2d2 02:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Space Intelligences, Intelligences, Mental planes, Mental Planes, Materialisations

User Intelligences (talk · contribs) created these articles for new-age/UFO material that is either uncited or related to Ted Owens. They have all been redirected to other articles (one by VfD consensus. Intelligences sporadically re-inserts the material and does not respond to communication attempts. Gazpacho 16:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Iglesia ni Cristo

In the past two weeks, it has been discovered that Emico (talk · contribs), who has been banned from editing any INC-related article on Misplaced Pages for a year, has been using sockpuppet accounts to circumvent the ban, and three of them were banned by TheoClarke (talk · contribs). Throughout this week, anonymous IPs with writing styles similar to Emico's have repeatedly placed POV material inside of the article, and it most likely is Emico judging from past occurences. His edits have been consistently reverted, but he has continuously vandalized the article despite requests to stop. I suggest the article be locked before matters become worse.--Ironbrew 05:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Current requests for unprotection

Please place new requests at the top.

User:Nihiltres

The vandals involved in the dispute have been contacted and have agreed to stop editing my user page. The conflict should now remain off of Misplaced Pages and the rest of the online community and only between the three of us. Thank you for helping to relieve the situation. Nihiltres | Talk 22:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Reasserting request: Illegitimate page protection on 9/11_domestic_complicity_conspiracy_theories

Page was blanked/redirected to the page that refers to it (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=9%2F11_domestic_complicity_conspiracy_theories&diff=23075049&oldid=23052353) and immediately thereafter (02:01, September 12, 2005) protected by same person. Said person is involved in a dispute with the page, and, furthermore, lied about the reason for protection: "anon is trying to move the page". Request immediate un-protection and sanction. Kevin Baas 23:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Note: already requested below (#Request to unprotect 9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories). --cesarb 00:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

False: The cited request is a separate request that had been filled a while ago, and the explanation above does not apply to that instance. The explanation above, where SlimVirgin is implicated as violating page protection rules on two counts, does not apply to the earlier request, which was fulfilled and is therefore no longer applicable.

Contrary to what cberlet Carbonite has suggested on that no-loner-applicable request, the content on the page has not been merged into a different article, and the discussion as to whether or not to merge, which has not come to a resolution before the content was blanked - did not even begin until after the content was blanked, is, as is proper, taking place on the talk page of the page that has been proposed to be merged (who's unblank version has the respective tag on it). Kevin Baas 13:38, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Please stop adding duplicate requests. If necessary, revise or expand on the old request. Carbonite | Talk 16:41, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Once again, the old request was not a duplicate request, as I have already made perfectly clear. It was, however, marked by a false/misleading comment which most likely caused administrators to ignore it / file it in their heads, falsely, as already dealt with. Thus, revising or expanding it would be useless. That is why, unfortunately, I had to reassert the request, instead of revising or expanding the request that has become neglected due to a false/misleading comment. Kevin Baas 17:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

In addition to this request, there are two other requests from you on this page to unprotect 9/11_domestic_complicity_conspiracy_theories:

• The first request was posted 13:00 September 12, 2005. It claimed that the page was protected on a vandalized version. This was untrue and I responded as such. My corrections were never disputed.
  • I did not notice your comment. Consider this a dispute. We obviously differ in opinion on what we consider "vandalism" and what we consider acceptable wikipedia conduct. Kevin Baas 22:57, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• The second request was posted 23:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC). It again requested that the 9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories article be unprotected. Cesarb correctly noted that this request had already been made and linked to the first request. Cesarb's comment was never disputed or responded to.
  • False. Correction: It again requested that the 9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories article be unprotected again. Small change in sentence structure, giant leap in concept. Just as one would file a request to have a page protected again after it's been unprotected again, one would file a request to have a page unprotected again after it's been protected again. You see a page may be protected, and then unprotected, more than one time, and therefore it's neccessarily to be able to post a protection/unprotection request, on each separate occasion. For example, the George W. Bush article has had a number of protection/unprotection requests, because it has been protected/unprotected a number of times. Kevin Baas 22:57, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Now you've posted a third request to unprotect the article. Please stop. If you disagree with what you consider to be a false or misleading comment, respond to it, don't just continue to post new requests. It makes a mess of the page and probably will make it less likely that admins will pay attention to the request. Carbonite | Talk 17:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I thought I made my reason clear. Perhaps you didn't understand. The likelihood of admins paying attention to the request was exactly my point; was exactly why I had to post a reassertion: because it was unlikely that admins would have paid attention to that request after they had read the comment falsly stating that it was a duplicate. I certainly wouldn't. You can understand the issue of admins paying attention to a request or not, if you can apply this concept in a different way, then perhaps you will be able to understand what I am saying. Kevin Baas 22:57, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Protection has only been applied to the article once, (02:01, 12 September 2005 SlimVirgin protected 9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories (anon is trying to move the page)) protection log. A new request is only appropriate after a state change (unprotected->protected or vice-versa). Contrast this with the George W. Bush article , which has been protected and unprotected many times. Carbonite | Talk 12:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely false. Protection has been applied to the article multiple times, as one look through the page history will reveal. Kevin Baas 11:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I provided a link to the protection log above and right here. Please provide similar evidence to back up your claims. Carbonite | Talk 12:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I see my name is mentioned in relation to this, but no one has approached me about it, and I have no memory of protecting it, or being involved in a dispute about it. Could someone explain what the issue is, so I can consider whether to unlock it? Many thanks, SlimVirgin 23:08, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, now I remember something: an IP address kept either moving 9/11 conspiracy theories to 9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories or else kept blanking the redirect. So I protected the latter so that it redirects to 9/11 conspiracy theories, which is the current title of the page. Kevin wants this protection to be lifted for what reason? And who has lied about protecting it and is involved in the content dispute? SlimVirgin 23:14, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

You have your story backwards: 9/11 conspiracy theories was not being altered in any way. The page 9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories kept being blanked and redirected to 9/11 conspiracy theories. If, as you suggest, 9/11 conspiracy theories was being moved to 9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories, then the proper course of action would have been to protect 9/11 conspiracy theories, not 9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories, and protected would, ofcourse, not prevent 9/11 conspiracy theories from being moved (which it was not being). Multiple people, as distinct from an "IP address", would restore the page content on 9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories (which is very different from that of 9/11 conspiracy theories), because there is an ongoing discussion on whether or not to merge the page into 9/11 conspiracy theory, and if every link to the page is redirected back out, there's no way get to the discussion page. (btw, the discussion page itself had been blanked and redirected as well, by some of the same people who continue to blank and redirect the article.) Your comment that the page 9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories - or as i now understand it 9/11 conspiracy theories - was being moved, is simply untrue. That is why I called it a "lie"; because it is untrue. One has simply to look at the page history to find this out. Looking at the page history of 9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories, one will also discover that you reverted that page immediately before protecting it, thereby endorsing a particular version, (specifically, the blanked and redirected one) which is strictly against wikipedia page protection policy. Kevin Baas 12:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

My version of reality is that the overwhelming sentiment of editors was that several pages be merged, and that a tiny handful of editors have refused to abide by that decision in a relentless campaign to force their will against the will of the majority. If page protection is lifted on any of these pages, they should be monitored for redirection or merger that violates the consensus, and the persons responsible be held accountable, or anonymous IP blocked for several weeks.--Cberlet 13:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I wish I knew what you were talking about, Kevin. All I saw was that Raul654, Jayjg, Cberlet, and Carbonite seemed to want the page to be called 9/11 conspiracy theories, as it is now. Then an anon User: 69.121.133.154 reverted to the other title. So I reverted it back (because it looked like vandalism), and blanked and protected the page so he couldn't do it again. I take it now the anon was you. My advice to you is to stop revert-warring against the consensus.

And even if you think something is untrue, that doesn't mean the person who said it was lying. SlimVirgin 19:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)