Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:14, 16 April 2007

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

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.

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

full protection Continued vandalism by interested parties and ongoing edit war, even after recent two week full protection. Contributions mostly manipulated by commercial stakeholder. bad·monkey _{talk to the {:()} :: 07:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

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

semi-protect. This is now the third SPP case opened on the article this year. Despite attempting to flush such problems out with two prior semi-protections to wear down vandals, the problems continue to persist with 19 cases of vandalism by 18 different Anon IP's since coming off a 30-day SPP on April 3. A sampling of the issues have included basic juvenile vandalism , page blanking , inappropriate content replacement or removal . When placed on SPP, this has had the desired effect of kerbing such problems with the article. While I would be hopeful that a 60-90 day SPP on the page would go some way to eliminating constant vandalism, I doubt it will have the desired effect after the SPP is removed. Thewinchester 05:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected - "Burger King sells manatee livers???" - I think you guys need semi-prot :) - Alison 06:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hazel (Watership Down) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection It appears to be a classroom or group of friends are vandalising it together. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. both vandals have now been blocked. - Alison 03:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

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

full protection Long and steady reverting by user 66... coupled w/refusal to engage in discussion or respect 3rd opinions or accept any part of prior edits 150.108.61.250 01:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Declined - edit war & anon user is giving detailed rationale on the talk page (as yet unanswered) - Alison 05:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Roswell UFO incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protect - this article has been getting vandalized by nonregistered IPs. Given the subject of the article, the size of the article, the number of hits im guessing it receives daily, and the number of articles that link to it, would it be ok to protect it? (:O) -Nima Baghaei 01:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. - sorry - Alison 01:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

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

semi-protection +expiry 6 hours, Semi-protection: Vandalism, _too much_ ip vandalism by different IP's Fischer.sebastian 00:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected--Húsönd 00:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Current requests for unprotection

• WP:RFUP
• WP:RFPU

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.

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

There appears to be a loose quotation mark on top of the banner. Can I please try to remove it by daybreak? --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 05:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Declined - fixed it instead. The wikignome strikes again :) - Alison 05:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk:71.195.107.162 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

The user is no longer blocked. If the page needs to be protected from the user (still or again), please only semi-protect. That will allow users to leave messages, but disallow vandalism or unrealistic unblock requests from the user. WODUP 03:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected - Alison 03:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Halo 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I would appreciate being able to edit this page since new information on the games' information is released on a weekly basis. And I often read its official posts on www.bungie.net --XtremeAussie 10:21, 16 April 2007

Unprotected — Malcolm 01:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Current requests for significant edits to a protected page

• WP:RFED

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.

Spider-Man 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I simply want to put in that the movie recieved a PG-13 rating yesterday. I also can't request this on the article's talk page because the talk is also protected. --98E 23:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected - unprotected the talk page so anon editors can add requests. Semi'd since December. See how it goes - Alison 23:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Add tag to the categories. Svsvtkag 13:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Fix spelling to the beginning of Comedy in Stardom section. Claudette was not enthused → Claudette did not enthuse Svsvtkag 23:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Add "Oscars" co-host to the succession box of Fimography section. 29th Academy Awards: (Succeeded by) Celeste Holm Svsvtkag 22:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Michaelas 18:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Fulfilled/denied requests

Lucius Caecilius Iucundus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I need to rewrite and expand this article for a school project.--megan gier 23:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected - Alison 23:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Heavy IP vandalism over a long period of time. Recommend Semi-protection. Canjth 22:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. John Reaves (talk) 23:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk:CarlKenner (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Protected last May due to encouragement of wheel warring and bizarrely false claims in general, but it's currently impossible for anyone without admin privileges to leave messages for this user. dcandeto 22:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected -- zzuuzz 22:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Yet another hasty protect, this time the admin made no talk page entry and stated in the edit summary that the block was for a week. This is getting ridiculous - a few edit warring individuals should be dealt with individually, but this admin decided to take it out on the article instead. Request immediate unprotection (keep semi-protect). --Tjsynkral 22:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Declined Please talk to the admin who protected it. We don't usually revert each other, bad enough that editors edit war a lot to also have a wheel war between admins. -- ReyBrujo 22:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Appeal The admin who blocked it has expressed absolutely no interest in the article or resolving disputes. I believe it is necessary and justified in this instance for another admin to intervene. --Tjsynkral 22:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That's the idea. Someone who does have an interest in the article should not protect it. And protection is to stop edit warring; it's not the protecting admin's job to help resolve the dispute. -Amarkov moo! 22:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring is a regular problem caused by the pro-global warming people (even a bureaucrat is exceeding 3RR over it, for crying out loud). Unless we get rid of these people there will always be edit warring on this article and it will never be unprotected for long again. I think it's worse to have that happen than to have the edit warring. --Tjsynkral 22:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Use this time to discuss in the talk page and agree with the changes. Having an administrator interested in either side becomes a conflict of interest. -- ReyBrujo 22:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + · · · (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

semi-protection +expiry 6 hours, Semi-protection: Vandalism, too much ip vandalism in the last 3 hours .... Fischer.sebastian 21:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Declined Sorry, but we do not protect the featured article of the day, only in extreme situations. -- ReyBrujo 21:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Semi-protect Loads of speculation and original research added by anons on a regular basis, as well as lots of general vandalism and "stolen" images being uploaded and added repeatedly. You Can't See Me! 21:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 72 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Are you warning users with a {{verror}} tag in their talk pages when they post unverifiable facts? The whole article is basically unverifiable. I am semiprotecting it for 72 hours to help you coordinate a clean up and warn all users about their unverifiable additions. -- ReyBrujo 21:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Semi-protect This article is a vandal target. See the page history for more details. Amos Han 21:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 72 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- ReyBrujo 21:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Semi-protect Quite a bit of recent vandalism, especially by IP's. Sr13 (T|C) 21:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Just one revert in the last three days. -- ReyBrujo 21:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

World War I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

unprotection Been protected for a month due to IP vandalism at the time. Surely worth a try of unprotecting it? GDonato (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: The last two times it was unprotected after a month, it got reprotected under 5 days later due to more IP vandalism. I don't think it's worth it to unprotect, but someone else can decide. -Amarkov moo! 21:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

My concern is that this is bound to be a "popular" article and therefore should show what a wiki is about. It obviously needs improvement too. Looking through the history, I understand what you mean though. GDonato (talk) 21:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected Even if it will bring vandals, it may bring good faithed users too. -- ReyBrujo 21:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

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

It honestly doesn't need protection from what I see. --98E 17:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It's still to soon to un-protect since the wave of vandalism will likely continue immediately after un-protection. It also just got un-protected and then re-protected. Cbrown1023 talk 18:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Fall Out Boy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

semi-protection , Semi-protection: Vandalism, Recently unprotected but it doesn't seem to be working (5 vandalism from IPs in 30mins) GDonato (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Declined for now. Only unprotected earlier today, giving it a little longer. – Steel 17:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Frame-dragging (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protect - I am dealing with an anon and a new user who are battling over this article. the anon insists on putting into the article text from a journal article, which violates WP:COPY. The new user insists on commenting on it in the article space. Both refuse to respond to messages left on their talk page or on the article's talk page. This is the only way that I can see to get these editors to back off. --EMS | Talk 17:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected – Steel 17:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

R160B (New York City Subway car) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and R160A (New York City Subway car) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protect Continuous addition of information that is incorrect by 24.189.76.48 regarding status of future new subway cars running on the A line of the New York City Subway. It is starting to get frustrating for myself and other users to keep on reverting the edits. Herenthere (Talk) 17:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Declined Sprotection is not for dealing with one particular user. I understand your concerns, but if the user is simply repeatedly adding incorrect information, try reporting him to WP:AN/I. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 17:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Fully-protect vandalism attack originating from Iranchamber editors Rayis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Agha Nader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Shervink (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The Behnam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Khorshid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Mehrshad123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Jahangard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Yima 16:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Fully protected, without endorsing the above comment. – Steel 17:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Semi-protect vandalism attack originating from 4chan. --Wildnox(talk) 16:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 48 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. — coelacan — 17:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)