Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:02, 10 June 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

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.

Apartheid outside of South Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Full protection - edit war over Israel. Homey 00:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Full Protection requested for anarchism. There is currently a revert war going on between user:AaronS, and an anomynous user. There was some reverting between several users, but now it has got worse.CaptainJ 20:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Semi-protection - It was semi-protected not so long ago, and with the removal of protection, returns a storm of vandalism, maybe it's the highly edited position that attracts the idiots, but the ratio of worthwhile edits to vandallism and reverts is now on the floor! Ace of Risk 20:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Full protection requested to enforce a cool-down for Wiki-star (talk · contribs), who is fresh off a short block for 3RR. User has immediately taken to reverting page as before, and repeatedly requests to be permabanned. Isopropyl 16:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Semi-protection requested due to persistant vandalism , , by anonymous IP-user 58.160.19x.xxx, who has been warned repeatedly , , . For making false edit summaries and using them for unproven defamatory claims this user should be blocked. As this is ineffective due to changing IP numbers, at least the vandalised page should be protected. Since this article currently is under mediation, contributing editors have better use for their time than constantly to revert vandalism. --Túrelio 09:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected. Might I also add that the article is really long; someone might want to think about splitting it up a bit. AmiDaniel (talk) 11:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Muswellbrook, New South Wales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection. Vandalised several times over the last 2 weeks by what looks like kids of the area. Semi protection will probably only be needed for less than a month, until they get tired of trying. Anubis1975 08:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Not enough to protect currently. Watchlist, revert, and warn as you see it--I will do the same. AmiDaniel (talk) 11:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, but how do you warn people when they are not registered and have a different IP address each time? Anubis1975 12:58, 9 June 2006 (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.

talk:Falun Gong

I understand that this is a subject with loads of rumours being spread about. But why is the article not protected, but the talk page is? How is anybody going to help get it straight, if one wants to keep it up to NPOV, but any change one makes is being deleted since one can't explain it?

--Hoerth 23:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Anittas

Sorry, template won't work to refer to a user talk page, which is what I want unprotected.

See discussion (by admins) on the talk page itself; see also discussion at WP:AN#User:Xed. I have been asking for explanation why this page was protected, and have received a near-insult from User:FeloniousMonk on the talk page and an assertion that he disagrees and wants to keep it protected, but I haven't seen anything that strikes me as appropriate reason to protect the page, nor have I received answers to my question as about the banning of User:Anittas. I am trying to get the page unblocked to have an appropriate place to discuss the matter. - Jmabel | Talk 23:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

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

I beleive the issues have now been resolved after discussion on discussion page. Editors who disagreed have come to an understanding. It seems to have been a mix up

Personal rapid transit/UniModal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page has been protected for 1 and a half months and is now obsolete. The page was protected because of a dispute as to whether it should be wiped and redirected, or not. Now the page has been cleaned up and the protected page should redirect to it. Therefore I request that this page hould be unprotected so it may redirect to a more appropriate (and specific) article. Fresheneesz 06:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

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

I request that the current status of full protection be reversed to semi-protection, because things have calmed down. Editorius 23:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC) I am requesting unprotection for editing, that is to add new material.84.64.58.164 02:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Please keep it protected and do NOT unprotect it. The changes suggested by Editorius are not acceptable. --- Faisal 11:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Unprotection. An article about a musician was deleted and this was protected. But this is also the name of a historical person (see The Years of the Life of Samuel Lane, 1718-1806 : A New Hampshire Man and His World), who seems notable. There's now a link to him from Stratham, New Hampshire and I would like it to be a redlink, so that anybody can easily create an article (I'm hoping somebody else will, but I might myself). --Rob 20:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds alright to me. It was protected way back in January; I'm sure User:Spamdaddy has found better things to do now. Consider it deleted. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unprotection. As per King of Hearts's suggestion, please unprotect, since the article is probably now less prone to vandalism, given that his death is no longer breaking news. Mistamagic28 17:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I've unprotected this since it is linked from the main page. AmiDaniel (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2006 (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.

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

Temp Unprotect... Actually just need this added to its See also section: 'Template:MergeVfD'; this template calls merge, and it's talk page was the oldest item on the merge backlog list, now gone. Thanks fer doin' me 'light work' (<g>) // FrankB 14:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I am actually puzzled. The template is a redirect, so should not be used if possible, and I can not find that it is included anywhere. So, it should not be in the see also section. So, if you would mind explaining why it should be added, that would be great. -- Kim van der Linde 02:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Israeli apartheid (epithet) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1) Move back to Israeli apartheid (phrase) which was the article's name until shortly before protection anmd was also the name under which the article survived an AFD. Political epithet is a POV description that assumes bad faith by people using the phrase (ie people like Desmond Tutu) when many who use the phrase do so as a means of comparison rather than insult. 2) Similarly, change the first paragraph to a more neutral form. Please change to:

Israeli apartheid (or calling Israel an apartheid state) is a controversial phrase used by some critics to describe the country's policies towards the Palestinian and Israeli Arab populations. Critics of the phrase see it as a political epithet and do not consider Israel's practices to be comparable to the actions of the apartheid-era South African government towards its Black and mixed-race populations, and regard the phrase as misleading polemic.

See Talk:Israeli apartheid (epithet) Homey 23:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I will repond to this request at the talk page as I protected it and might start mediating on that page . -- Kim van der Linde 03:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Please undo this move. The title is a pejorative political epithet. To call it a "phrase" is to give it legitimacy (which would be wrong per NPOV). This is similar to Fascism (epithet). A rename request doesn't even belong here. ←Humus sapiens 06:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Most of teh discussion is at the talk page, I think it is better to continue there. -- Kim van der Linde 16:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Fullfilled/denied requests

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

Semi-protection constantly link spammed. Computerjoe's talk 06:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Mail-order bride (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Full protection. Month-long edit war is tiresome. I'm hoping a cooling off will yield either compromise or the filing of a pending RfC. --William Pietri 04:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Protected. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Unprotection. Maybe I made a procedural mistake by not including the request explicitly in this section (you will find it also below in archived ones). One way or another, I think the dispute is basically solved. Duja 15:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected. Sorry, I just saw the message you left on my talk page from yesterday. AmiDaniel (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Semi-protection. Vandalized several times today. --Phoenix Hacker 03:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Brazil national football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection. Frequent vandalism by unregistered users. Could get worse once World Cup starts. —Palffy 23:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see enough to protect right now--no need to be too preemptive on these things. It's also possible that the World Cup might result in a lot of constructive contributions from anons. Watchlist, revert, and warn as you see it--I will do the same. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Full protection. Edit war. —Khoikhoi 19:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Protected. AmiDaniel (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Atkins Nutritional Approach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

BrianZ has agreed to stop editing the External Links Section which is OK with me. This should end our dispute and assuming he is sincere should be enough to lift the protection.

--Tommac2 14:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it best to give this one just a couple days longer. Note that the linkspam was removed post-protection, so there's really no hurry. AmiDaniel (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Tommac is the one adding the linkspam. BrianZ was the one removing it! When both users were blocked because of edit warring BrainZ wrote a bit of rant saying in effect that he'd had enough and would abandon trying to keep the link spam off the page. This is hardly an end to the dispute. Note that someone - (almost certainly Tommac2 IMO) has been editing the article to put the linkspam in from different IPs. I have been doing my best to AGF but Tommac2 blatent misleading here makes it very hard for me to continue. Please do not lift full protection yet. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

--Thresa this is hardly the truth. I am at two IPs and two IPS only and I sign my name on all my posts. I never added any linkspam. All I did was revert BrianZs External Link edits. This is the entire deal and I will be 100% truthful here. I use wikipedia quite a bit. But mostly to gather information. I really dont have time for contribution. I am involved in a number of projects regarding the Atkins Diet and have been for the past 10+ years. I run Atkins Diet Bulletin Board. If you do a search on google for the keywords Atkins Diet. I am at #5 and 7 or 6 and 8 with my site cuy.net/atkins and atkins diet bulletin board on Yahoo I used to be #1 for a while then #3. I claim ( without proof ) to have had the first Atkins Diet related website. I think this was before the Atkins Diet site started up. In fact it was before IE was around and before even netscape browser was mainstream. I mostly used lynx to view the simple site.

For I guess the past 10+ years I have been involved in some aspect or another as a key member of the Atkins Diet community. Mailing lists ( again I think I had the first one ) The bulleting board ( which stemmed off of another one that was subcontracted out by me ... I think that was the first bulletin board )

In any case I have been around the block.

I use wiki to gather information and as a first source to do information lookups etc. Well I saw Atkins Diet Bulletin Board listed there and thought that was cool. Then one time I went and saw it wasnt there. Then I looked a little and saw that it was BrianZ that removed it. I know that BrianZ was a member at ADBB and without going into it all again knew that he wasnt a big fan of ADBB so I readded the site. I then noticed that he posted very negatively about me ( all lies ) on Graemels site. I kind of took it personally at that point. And after doing a bit more research I was able to see what exactly was going on.

To be 100% honest my site being listed in Wiki does very little for my over all traffic on my page. At any time of the day there are over 40+ registered users there plus about 100 guests. The board is popular and anyone interested in the Atkins Diet can find it if they are looking or they will eventually get there.

That being said. I dont enjoy the implications that I am a spammer. I am not and I take offence to it. I battle spam all the time on my pages and have been a respected member of the atkins community for quite a while.

I do also think that the site has a place on wiki as I posted. I believe that the site: http://www.atkinsdietbulletinboard.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=79 should be listed. Please take a peak there and give me your opinion.

I dont believe that wikipedia would be a good place / way to house all of that info but I do believe that a link there would be a helpful external link for someone that is looking for help.

I am not sure why the site has been singled out and removed as linkspam. It is not a commercial site. And it is Free and abides by all of the rules. Most importantly there is exceptional information there that compliments wiki.

This all being said. I give you my word that I will not re-add the site. I just didnt like BrianZ removing it and that was the reason I was insitent in adding it back.

However I would like you to consider reading through the topics at least ... and maybe the content there and consider if for linking on the Atkins Diet site.

That is all. So you can end this and open the site back up. I am happy where things stand and although I would like to see http://www.atkinsdietbulletinboard.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=79 listed if it is not deemed appropriate then so be it. (Although I was still never given a reason why it was deemed linkspam and it would be cool to get an explination )

OK,

Thanks Tom Tommac2

User:NorbertArthur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I request unprotection of my userpage. It's me that requested in late April htis year a protection from User:Ronline, and now I want to be unprotected. NorbertArthur 8 June 2006

Unprotected. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection - Since the announcement of his death, there has been ample vandalism and by all inidications it will probably continue. Please sprotect for at least today. Mistamagic28 15:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

However, as it is a main page link, ask for it to be unprotected in 15 minutes or so. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Blu Aardvark/Evidence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Semi-protection - The semi-protection notice currently on top of this page would be meaningless without the page actually being protected. In addition, today the banned Selina edited this page anonymously, in violation of WP:BAN. 207.156.196.242 12:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, something got b0rked when Raul654 had to delete and restore the page. There was never any unprotection in the log, just his protection on June 1. I restored the semiprotection. Thanks! Syrthiss 12:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Millet (Ottoman Empire) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Full protection, edit war between two users. —Khoikhoi 05:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Full Protection please for continuous edit wars --K a s h 20:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Protected. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

User talk:82.44.79.192 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Unprotection. Let's try unprotecting this user talk page now that the user's block is about to expire. If the vandalism starts back up, I'll be back to rerequest semiprotection :) Cheers, Lbbzman 22:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected by King of Hearts. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Andy5190 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unprotection Its my userpage. It has been vandalised by "JKelly" and I want him punished for that, but I want my userpage unlocked. Andy Blak 19:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Denied. That image does indeed look unfree, and given the contentious attitude you've displayed so far (afd'ing Christianity) my assumption is that you would replace the unfree image. If you can guarantee that you will not replace it with an unfree image, I would consider removing the protection. Syrthiss 19:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Any admin should feel free to unprotect after receiving a commitment from the user to stop reverting to a version with unfree images on it (violating Misplaced Pages:Fair use criteria). Incidentally, it seems likely that any admin other than me would be more succesful at getting such a commitment, so it would be best if someone were willing to take this one on. Jkelly 19:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: It isn't his userpage, it is Misplaced Pages's. A commitment to cease using unfree images is reasonable. KillerChihuahua 19:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Admins, take a look at the images only one of the was unfree, and I am working on fixing it. And how can "afd'ing Christianity" be a justification to anything? I thought this place was better than this. Now it just seems that everyone is out to get me because I made a Wiki Policy Allegation. I don't even know that I want to help here anymore. I have been personally attacked. Wiki Rules have been broken and no one punished but me. I didn't actually break any Wiki Rules. I am about ready to just give up. Andy Blak 19:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Per our discussion on your talk page, page has been unprotected. As I noted there, I'm out of the office for a bit so don't let things explode while I'm gone. ;) Syrthiss 19:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Protection after third speedy deletion occurs - Already been recreated twice, users don't seem to get it. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 15:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Done by Alabamaboy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)