Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:06, 11 August 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.

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

Full Protection: This article is currently the victim of an edit war regarding whether a certain interpretation of evidence should be considered "factual". User "Folken de Fanel" claims the interpretation to be undisputed, ignoring evidence to the contrary, whereas I am trying to enforce NPOV policy.

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

Temporary protection: Page has been subject to edit wars in a conflict described here, . Other users support my side as well in these changes, but user is intent on using 2 screen names to avoid 3RR in his edits. --Palffy 15:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The page is under content dispute, not under vandalism.--Kwame Nkrumah 16:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Semi-protection: My talk page has been subject to vandalism by User:Kwame Nkrumah, in a conflict described here, . Cheers --Palffy 15:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The user Palffy is removing warning tags from his talkpage.--Kwame Nkrumah 16:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Semi-protection: This article has been the subject of frequent anonymous vandalism and is an inherently controversial subject. The frequent vandalism has made editing of the article extremely difficult. Cheers --Seth ze 11:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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

I am requesting temporary Semi-Protection due to the edits of a recent anonymous contributor who has refused to use the talk page and disregarded the 3RR. Their edit is not necessarily correct and thus should be discussed on the talk page first, however this is not possible if the editor is constantly reverting (without even edit summaries). Hopefully once the page is protected we can educate this new user about Wiki etiquette. Thank you. Suicup 06:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Full Protection: Edit war happening that cannot be resolved. Level of quality cannot be improved due to User: Hazelfo constant reverting-Diabolos 06:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Semi-protection may be needed. A new user requested this through a help me, and states that false information is being inserted by anonymous users. Ryūlóng 05:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Ryūlóng. Semi-protection is urgently needed. Someone (or some guys), whose IP address ranges can be seen on the history page, continue to add many new channels in the Channels Digest section. However, the debut of most of these channels on now TV have not been officially confirmed and announced on now TV's decoder and PCCW's Press Release Section. My friend who currently works for PCCW also told me that the broadcast of these channels is a fake news. If this vandalism continues, readers will surely be misled. -NEO-PAELEO 12:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Requesting semi-protection due to constant anonymous vandals. They wait for semi-protection to be removed, then they go back to vandalism. Check the history to see all the IP's of anonymous vandals who hit the site as soon as it is unprotected. --Teanth 00:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Semi-Protection. Sakuraba's article is constantly being altered by an unregistered user (IP is logged), who consistently adds illegal content (links to videos that infringe on copyrights). The history section of the article is littered with reverts because the person is so persistent in their cause. I request a semi-protection of Sakuraba's article, so only registered users can make edits. Thanks in advance. --Wyldephang 06:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Update: after I posted this request, the violations continued. A user reverted the edits, but cited the "good faith" clause. Seemingly ignoring this, the violations continued. I don't believe that this should be allowed to continue. It's being ignored, and when people see the edits, they assume it's a good faith edit. This has been happening continuously for the past week. Please address it. Thank you! Wyldephang 18:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected Talk about this issue on the talk page and address the anon there. Yanksox 00:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Semi-protection: vandalised over 40 times since semi-protection was removed on 5 August 2006. --Pak21 15:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Protected Jaranda 22:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Semi-protection. UK IPs keep deleting sourced info on a UK person without giving explanations, edit summaries or talk page posts.

btw: my request here has been vandalised, this is funny. --tickle me 04:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm keeping an eye on this one, I don't semi-protection is needed yet. Yanksox 03:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Semi-protection. Article is in the process of being vandalized by trolls from 4chan and Gaia's General Discussion forum, as evidenced in the page history. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 00:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Request withdrawn, vandal flood/edit war seems to have come to an end. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 02:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Unwithdrawing my request after more vandalism occurred overnight. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 10:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't appear semi-protection is needed now. I'm watching the page, and will protect when/if necessary. Yanksox 03:54, 10 August 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.

history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Page has been protected for about a month; requesting unprotection so {{editprotected}} doesn't have to be repeatedly used. 68.39.174.238 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article was protected 4 days ago for 'image removal'. While there were a few vandalism edits from I.P users, most of the trouble was edit warring among registered users. It also blocked a lot of contributions from good I.P users, who were helping with the article (since it's a big news item, a lot of non-usual editors made changes). I think four days is long enough for a page linked to the main page to be protected. Iorek85 00:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Sarastro777 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Two admins bypassed Misplaced Pages:Dispute Resolution, blanked my userpage, and then protected by skipping this page, so that they can leave it to their liking without discussion, oversight, consensus, or any judicial'esque process provided for here on Misplaced Pages. Admittedly some of the material is controversial which is why a Protect is completely inappropriate way to handle a content dispute. Especially when the Admins themselves are involved in the matter, using their tools against 'ordinary' users is esp. egregious and unfair abuse of civility in edit/content disputes. As always I request Admins not involved in Middle East articles or with interaction with me to handle matter in the interest of fairness/transparency for all sides. Sarastro777 22:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Deciding admin, please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Sarastro777's user page before making a decision. As I posted that request, I am recusing myself from denial/affirmation. However, Sarastro, if you always have to request that a new admin who has not interacted with you before look at this, and this is not the first time ("as always"), that in and of itself should tell you something. -- Avi 22:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a note, I declined an earlier request for this a few days ago. Yanksox 00:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You declined a request by me to protect the page from people blanking it. Now an Admin has blanked and has protected it in a blanked state he caused. Similar but different request/situation. Thank you btw for the earlier consideration and good memory :-) Sarastro777 05:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Episodes of Lost (season 3) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Requesting unprotection. page was protected as other users claim that information on page is false. the said information has since been confirmed by the writers of the show. thunderous503 10:36, 10th August 2006 (UTC)

User:Mike18xx (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Yes, it would be nice to edit my own user page. I promise not to use Skeletor.--Mike18xx 08:10, 10 August 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.

Fullfilled/denied requests

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

The AFD result was no consensus but and admin has merged & protected going against the closing of the AFD Feedyourfeet 21:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

A request like this might be more suited for WP:DRV, not here, just to avoid an edit war. Yanksox 00:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm requesting that protection be removed becouse another admin went agaisnt the result of the AFD. Feedyourfeet 11:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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

I am requesting temporary Semi-protection: this article has been the subject of frequent anonymous vandalism (including speedy deletion tags!) after this post appeared on an external website, placing the article under massive attack on the grounds of censorship, and calling Misplaced Pages "Nazipedia". While I can see the source of controversy, this matter cannot be left in the hands of anonymous contributors without a prior discussion, let alone when it involves speedy deletion... EpiVictor 12:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Semiprotected. Left note to EpiVictor and on article's talk page. I'll keep the dispute under observation. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Requesting full protection due to (you guessed it) another edit war. —Khoikhoi 02:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Under observation for the time-being. Seems to have stopped since last revert probably because the user doesn't want to violate 3RR. Watching the article & will protect if revert-warring resumes again. --Srikeit 05:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Request semi-protection due to repeated disruptive anon edits that appear to be from persistent banned user User:Amorrow. -- Phr (talk) 02:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree--admin help would be appreciated. Billbrock 02:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected by FloNight Srikeit 04:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Requesting semi-protection due to constant spamming. Individual attempting to add in their commercial web-site. Removed multiple times. Asked and warned not to post. Does not respond. Rsm99833 01:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems to have stopped. I'm watching the article & will protect if spamming resumes. --Srikeit 05:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Requesting full protection due to edit war. —Khoikhoi 00:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Under observation for the time-being. Seems to have stopped since last revert. Watching the article & will protect if revert-warring resumes again. --Srikeit 05:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Semi-protection, This article has been repeatedly vandalized by the following IP, 69.197.157.109 and 66.190.247.14 on August 7th.- Valoem 19:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Declined There was a high vandalism situation on August 7 but it seems to have quieted down since. Revert any stray incidents of vandalism & report again if the frequency of vandalism increases. --Srikeit 05:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Requesting full protection due to edit war. —Khoikhoi 00:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. -- Szvest 00:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Power Rangers: Operation Overdrive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The member who likely requested the protection is relatively new to the fandom for this show and is hardley qualified to handle a guide where the majority of the info comes from sources where you would have to be a long time member of the fandom to know their credibility. He has refused to include key info that several credible sources have posted just because they haven't been included in official articles. The fact that this is a show that doesn't get this kind of regular press means that all info has to be relayed via credible fandom members, which you would need to have at least a year of active experience at a board where the credible users in this fandom post at to know who to believe. This user posted something once at the main "hub" of the fandom, had his thread closed because it was posted several months prior, and hasn't been active at that board since then. Also, the show is in production, and has a warning about info subject to change, so it isn't neccisary to be so anal about where the source come from and require it to all come from official Disney articles. He even refuses to post any leaked cast info and cites a change that wasn't announced until a week before the show aired. Isn't that the point of the info subject to change disclaimer at top? In the discussion he actually used a comment from a known fandom troll to support his case. I request that protection be removed so all of his ill-informed decisions that made the guide a stub can be reversed, and someone with more experience when it comes to the release of info can handle the guide. And if possible, bar him from the guide while a more informed fandom member rebuilds it. --Kyl416 05:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur, if he's going to refuse to put stuff on the basis of a last minute notification that happened last season, he might as well delete the entire page and wait until the premiere in 2007 if he wants to be so certain. The disclaimer is there for a reason. This is a show where nearly all the info comes from credible fandom members and not official articles. If he refuses to acknowledge members that have proven themselves to be correct time and time again as official sources, and/or if he doesn't know who these members are, he has no business editing this show.--64.12.116.134 16:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I feel the same way. The production and/or the publication staff on board the Power Rangers series has always been very, very slow about releasing information, especially after Dino Thunder. While making an assumption on avalability of information is alright in some mediums, it IS NOT on Misplaced Pages, and sadly, this is what the current editor is doing. Kyl416 hasn't released information that isn't credible the whole of the time I've been in the Power Rangers fandom, and if himself or Burgandy Ranger SAY it's going to happen, chances are they have validated their claims through multiple resources at their disposal and unless there is an 11th hour change, it will come to pass. As far as the editor at hand venturing into the "hub" of the Power Rangers fandom? Well, Rangerboard isn't a place where asking questions or being new is held in a good light, persay. --Richardstone15 18:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, he's basically being selective on what info is "official" and what isn't. He'll accept advanced episode titles as legit, but not the logo, even though they come from the EXACT SAME SOURCE, and like the logo, he has no way to personally verify the episodes, which was the excuse he used to doubt the validity of the logo. If he refuses to accept one thing from me as official, he might as well refuse to accept anything from a credible fandom source as official and reduce the page to just, "Next years title is Operation Overdrive, nothing else is going to be here until the show premieres or a promo airs." He actually cited an example of a character who's official name wasn't updated until a week before the show aired as an excuse to leave any possible character names off the page. This is exactly why there's a DISCLAIMER at the top of the page that says information is subject to change as the debut of the show comes closer. It's so you can provide a semi-complete guide and not be liable when things change as the show comes closer, and use credible members of the fandom as sources. Who put this guy in charge anyway? --Kyl416 21:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

lol, Now the user is saying that if episodes are posted at TV.com, that counts as verification, even though I am the one posting them there.Kyl416 21:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point all of these users to the most important policy of Misplaced Pages: Verfication. The entire premise of the opening argument is wrong on every aspect of Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines. Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball, and it is not a place for your ownership of the article to post unverified speculation. Let the Disney press office do its job for the encyclopedia, not fanfare. Ryulong is completely acting in accordance with editing policies. Teke 21:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not new to the fandom of this show. I watched the original Mighty Morphin Power Rangers each afternoon when I was in Kindergarten. I had originally requested protection for the page due to constant unsourced cast and character lists that only had sources that are unverified as well as IP editors claiming the logo as legit and then linking to it (including one user who uploaded it without any source). Even if the logo could be uploaded, it would not be under fair use since it affects Disney's ability to sell their product and it is also a very high resolution. The character lists are extremely unverifiable at this point in time, and blocking me because I do not agree with the inclusion of the logo in its entirety on Misplaced Pages is ridiculous. Episode names are one thing; a high resolution logo is another.--Ryūlóng 21:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Watching the show from the beginning does NOT mean you are a long time member of the fandom. You are "new" as in the sense you are unaware of major names in the online fandom who have proven themselves to be right time and time again to the point where they can be considered official credible sources. It is possible to resize the logo, you don't have to upload the hi-res version. And again, who says you have the final say in what can get uploaded? This is a wiki, not your personal guide. Kyl416 21:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

A bit more policy wonking for you. Please brush up on Reliable Sources; more specifically WP:RS#Using_online_and_self-published_sources. Being a well known fan source does not qualify, and does not deminish Ryulong's or any other user not in your ring edit the article as is appropriate to building the encyclopedia. Teke 21:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I still don't think a low-resolution version of the logo would satisfy Misplaced Pages's fair use policies. Ryūlóng 21:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I realize that you and others are helpful to the fandom by releasing information early, but I am merely trying to keep complete unsourced speculation off of the page. I have nothing against you. I merely have an issue with the anonymous editors who made cast lists that made a female green ranger the leader of the Overdrive team. Ryūlóng 21:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This almost reads as a request for full protection. I'm keeping an eye on this one. Yanksox 04:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I concur if you can't tell people who Amit is, who created Rangercentral, and you won't trust the reliable sources in the fandom you have no business editing this page much less given protection over it.

Melissa Scott (televangelist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Requesting semi-protection for this article due to an issue with anonymous users repeatedly posting uncited material detailing this person's alleged past. --Cooleyez229 00:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. -- Szvest 00:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Economy of Paris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Requesting semi-protection. I'm not an editor of this article, but there's a content dispute between anons going on. The page was protected in the past to stop this, but little discussion took place to sort it out, and it's started up again after a routine unprotection. -- Steel 22:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. -- Szvest 00:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Peoples' Global Action (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Full protection. Please reconsider (see below: Fulfilled/Denied requests). Thanks! Lavieenrose 23:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)]]

Let's wait and see what happens. -- Szvest 00:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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

I placed a request for this to be changed from a redirect to a full page, and at least two people posted edits in support of the idea. Now, it hasn't been done, and it hasn't been added to the fulfilled/denied requests section below. What's the status of this request? Is Misplaced Pages really that scared to discuss whether or not it's own concept is flawed?

It was added to the denied requests section as denied by Yanksox, and has since been cleared out by the bot. I am also going to deny your request, though I might support changing the redirect as discussed on the talk page. Please sign your comments, as well. Syrthiss 17:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:Playnine9 (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

All is well. An angry monkey got ahold of my account and went nuts. The past 11 days of blockage seems fair. --- Playnine9 12:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected since your block expired. Yanksox 00:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Full protection. An endless and hopeless edit war going on for a good while now; mediation and lengthy debate and negotiation attempted to no avail. Only the couple of warring editors seem to take any major interest in the article and the war is over the impact of a 30 year old book which is not even in print anymore and seem to be stuck in an impasse with the initial creator of the article. --Tigeroo 19:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

FP. -- Szvest 21:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Request unprotect , due to lack of merit on the original request as stated on Fayssal's talk page.--CltFn 03:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)