Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by VoABot (talk | contribs) at 06:16, 2 May 2007 (BOT - Moving/clearing older requests. ). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

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

semi-protect. User keeps vandalizing w/ HD-DVD encryption number. Cybercobra 05:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Declined: only one user vandalizing right now, gave him a warning. Krimpet (talk) 05:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - HD-DVD issues. Sorry, Krimpet :( Alison ☺ 05:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Motion Picture Association of America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protetection Caught up in the HD-DVD uproar. east.718 05:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Alison ☺ 05:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

List of Internet phenomena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection Getting attacked by the Digg/HD-DVD nutbags. JuJube 05:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected. Krimpet (talk) 05:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

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

semi-protection repeated vandalism from anonymous users over the last week, deleting most of the article. abexy 05:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

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

semi-protect +expiry 1 week. Reason: repeated, strongly POV edits (rewriting most of the article) by anonymous editor. Splitpeasoup 04:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Semiprotect. Repeat target of vandalism in the past few days. BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 04:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. WjBscribe 04:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

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

full protection 1+ days This article is being vandalized over a dispute about posting decryption keys for HD-DVD on Digg.com. All changes made starting May 2nd are related to the vandalism and may contain illegal content. Jcapogna 04:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Alison ☺ 04:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

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

full protection 1+ days This article is also being vandalized by users of Digg.com over a dispute about posting decryption keys for HD-DVD. All changes made starting May 2nd are related to the vandalism and may contain illegal content. Iminaufo 04:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - ridiculous levels of vandalism Alison ☺ 04:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

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

full protection 1 day Article is being vandalized by users of Digg.com over a dispute about posting decryption keys for HD-DVD. All changes made starting May 2nd are related to the vandalism and may contain illegal content. Iminaufo 04:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Alison ☺ 04:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

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

semi-protect repeated vandalism by anonymous user User:Levan 03:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. bibliomaniac15 03:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Tyee High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

full protection +expiry 1 week, Full protection: Vandalism, repeat vandalism by multiple editors: Blount blainer, Thatguy69, Dogwoodmonster, Blad 22 mitcho/芳貴 03:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

User(s) blocked.. I've blocked Blad 22 and Blount blainier. Lets see if that solves the problem. By the way, Thatguy69 isn't a vandal... WjBscribe 03:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Semi-protect indefinitely. My userpage has been vandalized by an anonymous serial vandal operating from multiple IP addresses on America Online. Substantially similar vandal edits relating to "Justin's penis" or similar have been going on for days on the article Tiny from multiple AOL IP addresses. Anon user vandalizes pages of other editors who post vandalism warnings. Administrator User:Alison has been playing whack-a-mole for a while now, but the same vandal pops up on a new IP the instant one is blocked. There is no reason why anonymous editors should be able to edit userpages anyway. -Amatulic 01:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. We can always make it permanent if the problems resume. WjBscribe 01:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. That will be fine for now. I still don't understand the purpose in allowing anon editors to edit non-anonymous userpages, however. User talk pages, yes. But userpages? I'm frankly surprised that it's even allowed. -Amatulic 02:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

May 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-Protect for 1 day The page has been edited constantly, by ip addresses adding Birthdays, Deaths, Events, and such. These days have been completely outside in the sense, that they are not reffering to articles but just to random dates. --Random 01:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. WjBscribe 01:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Not sure if it's too soon, but it may use full protection or semi-protection since another page has also been protected in connection with one user who has been been blocked twice for 3RR. It seems though that he is now editing is through IPs (exact same edits). — Zerida 01:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. I've blocked the IP as its clearly the same person as the user blocked for 3RR. WjBscribe 01:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

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

semi-protection +expiry 1 day, Semi-protection: Vandalism, Higher lebel of vandalism, pages like this, in my opinion, also need sporadic cooldown periods when the vandalism gets a bit more active. Evilclown93 00:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. bibliomaniac15 00:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

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

semi-protection +expiry 2 days, Semi-protection: Vandalism, Vandalism from various I.P. and new user accounts _Ma 00:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. bibliomaniac15 00:20, 2 May 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.

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

Unprotect Vandalism and disputes have calmed down. Hopefully protection is no longer necessary and the article can once again be edited. LionheartX 04:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected. Alison ☺ 04:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of the Qur'an (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Discussion seems to have ceased. The edit wars seems to have ended.--Sefringle 01:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected. Alison ☺ 04:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

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

I see no explanation as to why this article is protected, and it doesn't have the appropriate protection tag. There also doesn't seem to be any edit wars. --Android Mouse 03:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, a tag is now added. --Android Mouse 03:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Not unprotected, looks like it was just protected a couple hours ago for vandalism reasons, best to let it cool down a while. Krimpet (talk) 03:19, 2 May 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.

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

Requesting the placement of template:sockpuppeteer on this page per Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/ChrisGriswold. John254 17:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That seems like unnecessary branding, to me. What is the predicted benefit of such an action? Dmcdevit·t 23:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The template would assist users in identifying new sockpuppets of ChrisGriswold. John254 03:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Declined: ChrisGriswold has stated that he is concerned of troubles that may result in using his real name as his username, which is a very legitimate concern. While his recent sockpuppetry is clearly unacceptable, the open ArbCom request will decide what course to take in this incident; branding him with this template would only cause problems. Krimpet (talk) 08:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Blp0 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Requesting the replacement of the language "unreferenced negative" with "unreferenced or inadequately referenced controversial" for consistency with the provisions of WP:BLP regarding the removal of unreferenced information, and to avoid misunderstandings with users who do not regard the unreferenced information they are adding to articles as negative. John254 20:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. – Steel 21:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

L. Ron Hubbard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The recent edit war was begun due to questions about whether or not Scientology actually published or referenced a forged Naval service document when describing L. Ron Hubbard's career in the US Navy. I have found references that current Scientology webpages are still using the document. I don't know if the block should be lifted yet, so instead I'm asking that the references be added by an uninvolved sysop. To make this as easy as possible for anyone who wishes to help, here is a link to what I want to change: L. Ron Hubbard#After the war. And this is what I'd like replaced: tag with <ref>Description of Hubbard's service/awards from news.scientology.org as a rebuttal to a Boston Herald article: </ref> minus the nowiki tags of course. Thank you for your time, Anynobody 04:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Declined That citation does not directly support the claim He also claimed to have received 21 medals and awards, including a Purple Heart and a "Unit Citation" as the claim is being presented by the author, nor Hubbard, and as it is primarily an attack on Joseph Mallia, including that reference would not be conducive to maintaining a neutral POV on the article. —dgies_c 04:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you may have missed what Joseph Mallia was writing about. He was writing about the truth of Hubbard's claims to have been a "war hero", and the site referenced is refuting the claims made by Mallia. In doing this they refer to a fake document indicating Hubbard won 21 awards including a Purple Heart with "palm".

The real form in question was made public after a FOIA request and is very different than the one referenced by the CoS site. Since the links show clearly what the CoS claims, the two accounts should both be discussed for the sake of NPOV. Anynobody 06:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

He also claimed to have received 21 medals and awards, including a Purple Heart and a "Unit Citation"

Also the above statement was not Mallia's statement it was whichever editor here that wrote it:

1. Malia writes article
2. CoS rebuts Malia stating Hubbard earned 21 awards
3. Real naval record comes out:
4. While trying to post both records (Navy and CoS) I am asked to show that the CoS actually used the source it did, see: .

You seem to think it was Malia who said Hubbard won 21 awards, it's the other way around. Anynobody 08:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read my response. My reading comprehension is fine. If you want to make this change, propose it on the talk page, gain the consensus of other editors, and then make a new request here. —dgies_c 15:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of clarity, at this point I'm not saying you have to make the change. However your response does not acknowledge any of the other sources cited above by me or those already referenced in the article itself. The links I added here, that you say is an attack on Malia, are claims made by Hubbard's biographer that he earned 21 medals according to this document: . Since the biographer/CoS are citing the above document, it represents what they maintain Hubbard's war record was. Now that the Navy version has come out, and it's different, both versions should be on the article for readers to judge for themselves. Again you don't have to make the change, but please explain your original answer because saying it would be POV and doesn't support the contention seems to indicate either you or I may not understand all the relevant information. Anynobody 21:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Support addition of citation

• Anynobody seems to have spelled this out very well, with reputable secondary sourced material. Smee 08:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC).
  • It's a fine source for representing Scientology's position, but it's neither written by nor quoting Hubbard, which is the claim Anynobody has proposed it be added as a citation for. It can certainly be used as a citation for Scientology's claims, just not for claims ascribed to Hubbard personally. —dgies_c 05:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

List of ninjutsu in Naruto (S-Z) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm not sure if this is the place to request it, but... I'm looking for an extremely specific edit: One of the headers reads: "Shadow Shuriken Imitation Technique." It was actually changed to that from "Shuriken Shadow Imitation Technique" here, immediately before the dispute took place, and nobody caught it until after the full-protect. Several pages link directly to that header, so having the wrong header for an entire week will mess that up. A desire for this edit is expressed at the bottom of Talk:List of ninjutsu in Naruto (S-Z)#Summoning: Impure World Resurrection, though nobody has really brought up requesting a protected-page edit. You Can't See Me! 22:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Declined - this article was fully-protected only yesterday. It's important to discuss/notify other editors of your requested changes. Can you request this on the article's talk page with {{Editprotected}}, please? - Alison 06:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Requesting the correction of the following typographical errors:

invstigate => investigate

soly => solely

Thanks. John254 01:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Done -- zzuuzz 02:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

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

1. Request an edit as per the section "Bias" on the articles talk page. The dispute that required the protection should be largely resolved by the edit proposed as it has been agreed to by one of the disputing parties (and by one other editor on my own talk page) and not replied to by the opposing party (nor opposed by any other editor) since the compromise was suggested on 15 April.
2. The article page has a semi protected tag but is actually fully protected. This should be corrected by either making the page semi protected or changing the tag. Cheers Wayne 04:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Done - Phaedriel - 06:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Non-talk pages automatically signed by HagermanBot