Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:49, 16 February 2006

• ]

This page is for requesting that a page, image or template be fully protected, semi-protected or unprotected, including page-move protection.

If you would like to request a page be protected or unprotected, please list it (and sign the request) at the TOP of the current requests section below, with the reason that it needs protecting or unprotecting. Also, make sure you specify whether you want the page to be full protected or semi protected. Before you do so, however, consult Misplaced Pages:Protection policy for details on the purpose of protecting pages and the guidelines concerning page protection. Misplaced Pages:Semi-protection is the policy that covers semi-protection of heavily vandalised pages.

Only consider protection as an option when it is necessary in order to resolve your problem, and when the only solution that will assist in the solution of the problem is protection.

Generally, full page protection is to stop edit warring or severe vandalism. Semi protection is only for vandalism. Full protection is also used on templates that are frequently used and not in need of frequent edits (this includes most editorial templates; see Misplaced Pages:High-risk templates).

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. Admins do not revert back to previous versions of the page, except to get rid of vandalism.

{{Editprotected}} can be used to request edits to protected pages as an alternative to requests for page unprotection.

Here is the log page if users want to look up whether or not pages have been protected.

Administrators: When you have fullfilled or rejected a request, please note your actions (or reasons for not acting) and, optionally, 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.

Category:Misplaced Pages protected edit requests lists current protection edit requests.

How to link to page

Current requests for protection

Please place new requests at the top, and use suitable link from prevoius section.

Misplaced Pages:Avoid using meta-templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

So we are here again, loke and neto is edit-warring again. _→AzaToth 13:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Please protect this article temporarily, with a view to making it permanent. Banned users have a tendancy to make false claims about the forums, which are uncalled for. There isn't much that can be added to the article anyway.

Definite no. We are a wiki. That means that anyone can edit. So protection needs to be used only in cases where it's necessary and with this article, there are just a couple of edits a day. --Woohookitty 08:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Please protect this article temporarily. Multiple anons have been bombarding it with vandalism since Monday, February 13. We are trying to improve this article through the Misplaced Pages:Article Improvement Drive and needless to say, constant vandalism such as this gets in the way of our work. -- Clevelander 21:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Protected. Should be relatively brief. --Woohookitty 08:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Please semiprotect. An anon keeps reverting this page to give undue weight to a alleged decipherment. This has now been counter-reverted by nine named accounts and some anons. history Since the anon uses several different urls in the 80. range (but reverts to the same text, and continues the same arguments) 3RR does not seem helpful. (If they create an account and violate 3RR, fine; that will take care of itself.)Septentrionalis 21:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Protected. Despite the fact it's a dynamic IP, I blocked for 3RR anyway. --Woohookitty 08:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Being this anon, I strongly contest what Pmanderson has written. I've never used several url in the 80.range. In fact, Pmanderson uses now the semi-protection of the article to vandalize the attempt by other administrators to put an end to the Edit-War he started himself. I am asking a)- for a total protectionof the article, in order to find a reasonable solution to the Edit-War and b)- for the suppression of Pmanderson from the list of the WP administrators.

Upholder/Victoria class submarine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

N328KF keeps editing these pages. They do not refer to the same ship class as one is for the Royal Navy and the other for the Canadian Navy. They were originally separate pages but were merged without discussion. N328KF keeps merging these pages and did not contribute to the discussion page. I would like to make a similar request for Template:Upholder/Victoria class submarine and Upholder class submarine and Victoria Class Submarine. 66.57.87.50 19:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

An anonymous user keeps editing these pages. They refer to the same ship class, but the user persists in splitting it out, thus undoing the fact that they were merged. Worse is that the user refuses to discuss this. It would be one thing if it were an established user, but this is an anonymous user. I would like to make a similar request for Template:Upholder/Victoria class submarine. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 19:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Already protected.Voice of All 19:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Protected Upholder/Victoria class submarine only. You guys should really try discussing this on the talk page, and possibly seek others' opinions. the wub "?!" 19:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Calvin and Hobbes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Over the past month or two, there has been a repeated effort to change the setting to "western New York" by a number of registered and unregeistered users. The registered user (there may be more than one) seems to have registered the account specifically to edit this page. There is verified source material (the West interview) that specifically describes the setting as "midwestern" in character. Other than a constant edit-revert stalemate, I believe that semi-protection would be helpful in preventing this vandalism. Thank you. -- Avi 15:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that it's a registered user causing some of the trouble, it looks like. And he's been registered for more than a few days. So if we semi protect, then he can get around that. I think we'll use vprotect instead and hope he goes away. --Woohookitty 08:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Arvanitic language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and related pages

I request semi-protection for Arvanitic language and un-protection and then semi-protection for Arvanites. talk to +MATIA 14:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Both are now fully protected due to edit wars. --Woohookitty 08:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Nazism in relation to other concepts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Editor is watchdogging page, reverting without substantive discussion. Appears to be a WP:OWN issue. Sam Spade 14:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

He has now created Nazism in relation to other concepts (disambiguation), (again without discussion) assumably to subvert the 3rr... quite disturbing. Sam Spade 14:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well the disam page is going down in flames to an afd. As for the request, it's difficult because, as you said, he is watchdogging the page. If we protect, there's a good chance that we will be protecting his version. Not sure that will solve anything. I'll say no for now but keep this on here for a bit. --Woohookitty 08:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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

I had created the template on December 31, 2005, but recently it disappeared. There has been much talk about userboxes reflecting political beliefs, but the consensus has been for keeping. As for this particular one, the previous version was deleted by an unknown person (vandal), without any discussion/vote.

Strong argument for keeping (and thus, protecting) this particular one is the fact that similar templates with comparable contents (negation of a political view) such as Template:User_anti-fascism, Template:User_anti-imperialist etc do exist.

In case this template will be deleted by the time you see my request, it will be the job of this vandal. Appearantly, User:MarkSweep is the executor of such a POV policy. Constanz - Talk 09:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Number one, I guarantee you that MarkSweep is not a vandal. Only admins can delete pages and if an admin was a vandal, they wouldn't have been elected admins. Secondly, if you dispute the deletion, use deletion review. That's what that is for. We do not determine that kind of thing here. --Woohookitty 10:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

An admin may happen to be a vandal as well (if he's constantly and stubbornly executing his own beliefs)-- and in that case, a rather powerful one. The anti-NPOV is obvious. I've already turned to authorities.The fact is, the talk page discussion was not for deletion and no proper deletion vote/discussion/consensus could be found. Constanz - Talk 10:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You can't protect against deletion - it is not technically possible. Anyway, deletion, although it can be bad is never vandalism. --Doc 10:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Larry Sanger/Origins of Misplaced Pages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Larry Sanger requested page protection in his edit summary. . I'm just listing it here to make sure an admin sees the request. --TantalumTelluride 04:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Done -GTBacchus 05:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm very leery on that one, no matter who Larry is. I almost think we should ask Jimbo. Otherwise, we're basically protecting a POV essay. --Woohookitty 11:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, if he doesn't want anyone to edit this then he can host it on his own website IMO. Jacoplane 14:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Then unprotect it. I won't wheel war. -GTBacchus 15:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Do we really want someone editing a user page against the clearly expressed intentions of the user? Septentrionalis 03:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that a) its about a wikipedia in their userspace, and related to wikipedia. b) ask Jimbo, but provide him with the respect and protect it, if Jimbo wrote something like this and protected it no one would question him. Mike _{(T C)} 04:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

If y'all are going to keep it protected, could you please address Larry Sanger's request on the talk page. That subjective pronoun is driving me crazy! --TantalumTelluride 05:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It's fixed. Thanks. --TantalumTelluride 05:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

List of monarchs of Kush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I can't decide to just protect this thing myself, and I'm tangentially involved, sort of, so I'll let another admin have a look. It's just a BC/BCE edit war, because this fire is destined to spring up again and again and again until enough people decide it's worth it to say anything at all about it in the MoS. Anyway, I can't see what good protection will really do, but I hate to just let them revert and revert and revert and revert. -GTBacchus 04:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Protected. Looks like this has become one of those "You reverted! No you reverted!" things. Oi. --Woohookitty 08:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The article appeared to have had an editor's unsupported opinion interspersed between factual sections (eg: "rather saccharine", "The Australian Broadcasting Corporation has also provided considerable airtime to Leunig to disseminate his views on a range of political and philosophical issues, despite his lack of expertise in any areas he is asked to discuss" and so on); in light of the recent hoax in which one of the subject's cartoons was submitted to a Holocaust cartooning competition, and the political atmosphere surrounding the subject's work at present, the article warrants some protection to prevent malicious alterations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.23.138.75 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 15 February 2006.

Protected. --Woohookitty 08:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Current requests for unprotection

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

Asking for semiprotection. I'm not sure why the article was protected in the first place since most of the disputes have already been resolved to great degree. There are some minor disputes remaining, but I don't see any reason for full protection. Aucaman 10:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The article was semi-proetcted over a week ago due to a couple of very minor incidents that could even have been viewed as nothing more than an edit/revert war. I suggested unprotecting it on the talk page three days ago, but no-one has responded either way to this. The anonymous editors who the protection was designed to act against haven't edited any pages since their problematic edits. KeithD 09:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I will unprotect. The 2 best ways to get unprotection/protection are to comment here or on an admin's talk page. Doing it on the talk page is iffy because the chances of an admin seeing it are slim. --Woohookitty 09:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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

40% of the voters (12.02.2006)voted for keeping the anthropology section. There was no 2/3 majority for the deletionists as is requested according to wiki standards. Additionally, votes shall only assist consensus building. Nevertheless, the anthro- section was deleted , the article semi-locked which was clearly directed against the initiators of the anthropology section.The anthro-section was very pro-Asian and pro interracial relations , but the deletionists are hate campaigning against them. Please read it, they present Asian-Caucasian relationships as sick.This cannot be tolerated. 80.138.168.39 11:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The deletion was carried out in accordance with Misplaced Pages policy; the anon or anons concerned have shown repeatedly that they don't understand or are unwilling to acknowledge that policy. He/she/they threatened to revert the edits, and it was clear from the emotional behaviour on Talk:Asian fetish that the article was under threat. Note that I didn't move the article from unprotected to sem-protected, but from fully protected to semi-protected, as recognition that a debate and straw poll had achieved fair consensus, but also that a small minority (of anything down to one, given the sock- and mock-puppetry going on) were still a potential vandalism problem. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Will keep protected. --Woohookitty 08:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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

There was a problem a few days ago with an anonymous vandal due to a lot of press about the article, but it doesn't seem to be a problem any more. -- MicahMN | μ 20:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected. --Woohookitty 07:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages vandalism