Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:11, 9 May 2006

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 2025

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.

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

Revert wars over a sentance for about a week now.--Urthogie 11:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Semi-Protection This article has been under recent attack by IP users, which can be directly traced to a certain discussion forum. The talk page has also been vandalized similarly. TheGreatTK 09:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection Caldorwards4 and me ForestH2 have been in a revert war for about a month now with the IP adresses who are vandalizing the page up and down. I have left messages on the IP adresses's talk page. ForestH2 01:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Semi-protect, lots of vandalism over the last few days by anons. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Britain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protect. Has to be reverted more than once a day due to vandalism by unregistered users. Shimbo 00:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Applied.  Denelson83  09:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Semi-protect. Daily vandalism occurs here, almost always by unregistered users. Requesting that this page be semi-protected for a brief period if not indefinitely. Note: Vietnam War is already semi-protected; this article should follow suit. --Crisu 21:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Not enough. Revert. · Katefan0 /poll 21:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The article had been vandalized 8 times today by different people. How many times is enough? DHN 21:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Semi-protect. This page receives numerous vandalism attacks daily, mostly by anonymous users. Currently I'd say about 75% of the edits done to this page are vandalism and reversions. There have been 9 vandalism reverts today alone on this page. Requesting semi-protection for a short time to cool things down. SteveJ2006 21:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Not enough. Revert. 21:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katefan0 (talk • contribs)

Nine times in one day is not enough? I'd say that classifies as excessive vandalism. SteveJ2006 00:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Daily Vandalism.

Not enough. Revert. · Katefan0 /poll 21:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Semiprotect. See history. Lots of vandalism, often by anon users. Jess Cully 18:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Not enough. Revert. · Katefan0 /poll 21:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Andrés Manuel López Obrador (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semiprotect. See history. Strongly suggest semiprotection to avoid anonymous changes. Primeditor (talk) 10:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Not enough vandalism for a semiprotect. Hasn't even been edited so far today. Just revert. · Katefan0 /poll 15:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Semiprotect. See history. Lots of vandalism by anon editors, including page blanking, inserting false data, changing the flags of players to flags of Turkey. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I only see a handful of reverts here. Not enough for semiprotection, just revert them. · Katefan0 /poll 15:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Semi, continuous vandalism by anonymous users --Sigma 7 05:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Not enough to justify a semiprotect. Just revert. · Katefan0 /poll 15:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Full, ongoing revert war over politic and nativatism, statements, see history and talk. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 03:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's needed in this instance. YOu have several people participating; make judicious use of enforcing 3RR if you must. · Katefan0 /poll 15:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Being targetted by shill user accounts being created. See history. -- Mkamensek -The LeftOverChef 02:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Already semiprotected. · Katefan0 /poll 02:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Requesting semi-protection. Changing anon IP is reverting edits and refuses to discuss the issue on the Talk page. Fagstein 00:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Adam Carr, one of the few publically known professional historians on Misplaced Pages, has been in the process of rewriting this article. In the process, he has encountered considerable resistance from vandals, sockpuppets, and Castro supporters. Now that he is out on a brief break to attend a conference, the page should be protected in order to prevent the quality of the article from deteriorating back to the state where it was before Adam began his work. 172 | Talk 23:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that qualifies as a reason to protect the page. Misplaced Pages's articles are open to anyone to edit, and protection is only employed in cases of edit warring or where the vandalism has become to difficult to manually revert. For now, just keep the article on your watchlist and revert any vandalism or POV-pushing you see, but we can't protect an article just because the chief contributor is temporarily unavailable. AmiDaniel (Talk) 23:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Although in looking at the history, there is quite a lot of vandalism to the article despite being sprotected. Nonetheless, I still feel full protection would be a bit drastic at this point. AmiDaniel (Talk) 23:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Please take another look. There is currently an edit war involving a chronic sockpuppet user. If the page is not protected, the article is going to go to hell real fast, as no one usually has the time and the inclination to watch the article as frequently as Adam. 172 | Talk 23:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Full, ongoing revert war over if {{British TOCs}} should be included or not, was a more active war eariler, but seems to be pick buack up again. Discussion seesmt to be ongoing on {{British TOCs}}, where reversions are also taking place, but the reversion of the inclusion of the template occours at regular intervals on the artcile. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 21:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Fully protected due to revert warring. Voice-of-All 00:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Semi-protection Heavily opinionated material has been continually inserted into this article over the past few weeks by one or more anonymous users with dynamic IP addresses. We have repeatedly requested that sources for the information be cited or that the practice of readding the material be stopped, and have had no success. Keeping the page neutral is becoming a reversion war. --Agorecki 20:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-All 00:09, 8 May 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.

Template:Saintandrewsfall

Need to add picture of new controller. I have a press version, not from presentation. Can I add?

Template:Poli-stub (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why was this page even protected in the first place? (I see no vandalism.) jareha 17:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

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

I actually had something useful to add. And i'm too lazy to register. :)

Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This page was recently protected by Geni for the reason stated on the history: "Protected Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion: Edit rate is far to high for a policy page. )". However, I don't think that article should be protected because if you look at the history, the majority of the edits are positive changes that improve the page. Unless there has been some sort of major problem concerning people blatantly changing policy without general consensus, I don't feel such an article should be protected. Cowman109 01:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The speedy criteria are what they are. I don't see any need for this page to be edited frequently. No to unprotection. · Katefan0 /poll 02:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Deletion review (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rationale for unprotection is much the same as Septentrionalis' below for the subpage. While SP might have been justified to deal temporary with persistent vandals, long-term the page must be unprotected to hear good-faith complaints from anons and newbies. Even if these are sometimes absurd, good-faith requests deserve a bit of time, attention, and a kind explanation, and DRV is a place for that. Xoloz 23:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Another vote for unprotection. Members of Conservative Underground wish to discuss the recent deletion of our site. It's a little difficult to do if we are muzzled. crockspot

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

- Consensus has been reached around the use of the term full stop vs. period in the typography section (believe it or not). Time to move on, please unprotect. Bob schwartz 22:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. · Katefan0 /poll 02:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Userbox debates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Semiprotected on the grounds that anons and newbies have nothing valuable to add to the discussion. Largely true; but that's not the only effect. This also means that anons have no place to appeal if their userbox is speedied. We should hear complaints (and explain ourselves) even if we are unanimous in turning them down. Septentrionalis 16:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not stepping anywhere near this thing. There are plenty of admins watching this page, appeal there. · Katefan0 /poll 02:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping for a wider view. Septentrionalis 23:25, 8 May 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.