Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Agathoclea (talk | contribs) at 18:04, 23 December 2006 (adding three footbal clubs). 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.

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

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

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

please semiprotect for the school-holidays. Some kids from a school in Duisburg keep including the name of their teacher as well as their own or the names of classmates into lists of famous player/current squads. Also constantly including made up content. Other articles relating to the town have been affected, where same names have been included as mayor or other notable citizens, but seems not a current problem. Edits come mostly form the 217.230.xxx.xxx range.Agathoclea 18:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Semi-protect: Constantly vandalized by anonymous IP's.--Urthogie 16:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. -- Steel 18:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Semi-protect - we've had months of low-level on-going vandalism from a number of anon IPs. My guess is that it's one person, or a small group of friends, who think it's a giggle to vandalize the article again and again. It's not a heavily-edited article and a month or so of semi-protection should be no barrier to the usual editors, while removing the giggle factor for the vandals. Zora 06:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected multiple IP nonsense Gnangarra 13:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Persian Gulf naming dispute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Requesting semi-protection due to edit-waring by an anonymous user persisting to advertise a personal website that apparently contains fraudulent maps. The Anonymous user already violated 3RR rule as well. --Mardavich 00:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Declined use {{spam}} and notify at WP:AIV if the editor returns but it 5 hours since the last edit by this user. Gnangarra 13:31, 23 December 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.

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

Hi Nish, I had put up a request to unprotect the IIPM article yesterday. I could not find the request out here. It'll be nice if you can kindly tell me whether you can unprotect it. Or at least put my user id along with the ids of others who're allowed to edit. You could bounce of my name to Deepak Shenoy, Makrand who're editing the page since long and who's version is what you have accepted before edit protecting the page. The problem I'm facing is that I've been editing this page since more than one year, but unfortunately was not using a loginid. It's only three days back that I've created a login id. With respect to the overall request for unprotection; the fact is that the current editors have kept reverting my move that if there's a separate project created called "IIPM Controversy" then details of that should not be repeated in the project page called "IIPM". Only summaries of the IIPM Controversy page should be given in the IIPM page. It'll be nice if you can visit the IIPM page and also the IIPM Controversy page and realise the situation. I had personally requested for mediation; and for information, it was I who had requested Ganesh to protect the page from vandalism (you could directly check from him too). My apologies for writing so much, but my requests are just two (1) Kindly put my login id as one that is allowed to edit (you could check from Deepak and Makrand if you want) (2) Kindly revert the unprotect after you have yourself checked the details that so many details on the page IIPM Controversy are being repeated on the page called IIPM. I'll await your reply, regards. Mrinal Pandey 07:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Mrinal has, in the recent past, deleted the content regardless of discussion; I believe removal of edit protection will result in reverts and cross reverts because this is still unresolved. As for the discussion, the current content is just a summary of the controversy. The talk page contains the discussion and hopefully we can get other editors to help with the RfC. Until that happens, I request for protection. Deepakshenoy 08:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Disagree with Deepakshenoy. User Mrinal has a background of reverting after discussion. The reverts cannot be called vandalism. A lot of information on the IIPM page has been taken up from the separate project page called IIPM Controversy. It seems that the IIPM page has been made to highlight just controversies; user Mrinal's reverts have always been with discussion; so have been user Deepakshenoy. But edit protection should continue at least till one day after Christmas. The weekend might see other non-identifiable users try to vandalise just for the heck. Protection should be removed after than. An edit protection cannot be done to stymie the logical arguments of editors indefinitely. But your call. Regards, and merry Christmas Chambers Jonathan 10:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought the section was only for requests and not for opposing such requests :-) But despite my obvious affiliations, I have to agree that the IIPM main page seems to be too full of paras after paras of controversies. If you compare the amount of space the current editor Deepak Shenoy has given to controversies, versus the page space given for describing course contents, or faculty, or workshop areas, or describing even the programme (I mean, there's not even a line devoted to describing what is the main course of IIPM? It's called "National Economic Planning" but what is it?), I'll say the current editors have been putting too much controversial stuff. And with a separate page existing, called IIPM Controversy, I think user Deepak should allow the shifting of the main controversial material to the separate project. However, I agree with the view that edit protect should remain for at least a day or two because this being a weekend might see a few more vandals. Thanks Dhananjay IIM editor 10:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Mrinal, there's a separate page on IIPM Controversy. A lot of stuff can be shifted and this deadlock avoided easily. Page protect can be removed if and only if vandalism is not evident. CiaoSteven Warner 10:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Would like to bring to your notice that despite being generally civil, in the very recent past user DeepakShenoy has gone against wiki policy by attempting to disclose personal information about user Mrinal on the discussion pages. He had been warned by user Ambuj Saxena and consecutively, Deepak Shenoy had to apologize on the talk pages. The transcripts are available on the talk page. talk the administrator has been discussing with user Deepak Shenoy on Deepak's personal discussion pages, also giving him a barnstar award for ensuring that the controversy section survived so long. The exact wordings used are, "I'm amazed the controversy section survived so long :)". You can check the transcript of the conversation on user Deepak Shenoy's page too. Given the fact that you copy protected the page on administrator Ganesh's request, and also given the fact that unknown users have in the past tried to revert, would it not be possible that users Deepak Shenoy and others tried to deliberately vandalise the page, and consequently ensure that the page gets protected by you? I wish you would kindly ensure that such a situation does not arise where the vandalism is done deliberately by a group which wanted the page to be edit protected. If the page continues to be edit protected, I will raise the issue in the next forum, pending your response. Regards Desiree777 10:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Sysop Nishkid, this is to bring to your notice that the first notice for mediation has been put up on the IIPM page; it is pending your acceptance. Apart from you, other sysops have been accused, along with user Deepak Shenoy, of misusing your relationship with certain Indian administrators to ensure that a page be edit protected deliberately. Kindly do visit the talk page on IIPM to ensure you either accept the mediation request or reject the same, failing which a second notice, again with you and the other parties as accused, will be put up. Failing your acceptance of the same, the same will be referred to the arbitration committee, with transcript communication copies of the conversations between Deepak Shenoy, Ganesh, and you, to prove the accusation. I do await your response. Regards. Desiree777 15:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Not unprotected. Lots of brand new accounts here, this is turning into Sock Central. -- Steel 18:00, 23 December 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.

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

The first template should be changed to {{sockpuppeteerproven}} as CheckUser has definitively proven that he's behind a ton of sockpuppets. 68.39.174.238 11:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I am happy to hear that the User wasnt me and that he was behind many sockpuppets, and that it wasnt me, does this mean that the Admin that Listed my IP address in error, has verified that I was not the user in question and has removed my IP with the all the POST HASTE I could hope for. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rjbussiere (talk • contribs).

TOTSE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Stephen Venables (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Judge Rotenberg Educational Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Kevin Federline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Google (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Roger Needham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Tayyibah Girls' School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Fantabulous (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Enviga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Requesting the replacement of the current protection templates on these pages with template:vprotected to more accurately describe their status, and to inform users of the method by which to request that edits be made on these pages. John254 21:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

 Done several that mentioned vandalism specifically in the protection summary. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

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

In this article there is a big libel against this pretender without any source of this libel. An user affirm she is a "impostor pretender" and so insert in the end of her page this category. So please delete this category without foundation. All the newspapers of the world affirm her as pretender of the Portuguese Throne and not as impostor. Only for a example see the most important newspaper in Spain affirm her as pretender in the day of her death . At the contrary the supporters of the other pretender Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza want denigrate Maria Pia in order to favour her leader and libel Maria Pia page with this insult. User:82.60.12.130, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

Declined the category isnt "imposter pretender" but "imposter" or "pretender" as a pretender to the throne the article appears to be correctly categorised. suggest that you post at WP:RFC for a broader range of opinions. Gnangarra 14:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The category is "imposter pretender" and the definition in this page is "This is the intersection of imposters (people impersonating someone else) and pretenders (people making claims to regal positions such as the queen or king of a country)". In this case this affirmation is only a libel against this pretender without impartial sources because Maria Pia of Saxe Coburg Braganza, aka Hilda Toledano as writer, was the daughter of the king Charles and the definitive sentence of the Sacran RoTa Romana issued definitely the validity of her baptisimal documents where the king attribuited all the rights of an princess of Portugal to Maria Pia. She is a pretender and not a impostor pretender as miguelist supporters want deceive.So please delete this category in her page User:82.60.12.130, 10:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

Why you want continue to libel this pretender with this false affiramtions in the category impostor pretender in her page? Please delete this category in her page. User:82.60.12.130, 14:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

Declined protection doesnt make any decision/comment on content, libel can only be applied to a living individual, and this should be discussed on the article something you have yet to do. Additionally you signed these comments as User:82.60.12.130 yet you were using IP address User:87.14.251.162 at the time , this appears to make your intentions malicious. Both IP addresses are suspected to be sockpuppets of previously banned User:M.deSousa, who has already recieved an indefinate ban from the portugese wikipedia. Gnangarra 12:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Fulfilled/denied requests

Disk encryption software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Protect - User:Maxt appears to be attempting to start an edit war on this article. He is disputing the cross-platform section but, despite the talk page's consensus, is continuously reverting this article back to a version with his edits in, and without a {{disputed}} template. Please could you revert to the 10:44, 23 December 2006 version (marked disputed) if needed, and protect? Cralar 10:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Declined I dont see enough evidence at the moment to indicate that the issues cant be resolve, as other editors are making unassociated edits full protection would be harmful. I suggest that the article talk page get archived as the page has lost continuaty which appears to be contributing to the issues. Gnangarra

Www.google.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Protect - just as the Google article is fully protected, this redirect needs the same; vandals are just getting aware of the ability to use this as a similar place to vandalize this article/redirect. SkierRMH 06:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Alphachimp 07:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Semi-protect - Long term persistent target for vandalism from many different anonymous IPs. ... etc. -- Fourdee 06:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Alphachimp 07:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Semi-Protect - Vandalism. IPs keep replacing "Comedy Central" with "UPN". --AAA! 06:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. I've blocked the offending IP. Alphachimp 07:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Full protection After ongoing pleadingw ith an unregistered user to cite sources the continously ignore such requests and have destroyed some of the standard html on the page. This has caused many of the internal links not to work. The person's poor usage of the English language is very obvious to numerous spelling mistakes. --XLR8TION 04:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked the two users User:70.126.2.82 and User:XLR8TION each for 24 hours for blatent 3RR violation. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 05:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I have also blocked User:162.83.132.164 for 24 hours because I suspect it is the same person as User:XLR8TION (see contribs). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 05:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. For now, be sure to use descriptive edit summaries and discuss edits on talk. I'll be watchlisting this article for future difficulties. Alphachimp 07:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Snohomish, Washington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Requesting semi-protection due to rampant vandalism by numerous anons after the page appeared on web sites due to a controversial news story about the town's high school football team. Shouldn't need it long, just until the story goes cold.Korranus 03:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Alphachimp 07:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Semi Protection requested; this article has been vandalized 5 times in about the last 12 hours by four persons seeking to insert the words terrorism, terrorist etc. all over the article. Two of these were anons, and the other two (Begmnk and Kliztor) are accounts created on December 22, the date of the edits; one of these users has just this one edit, the other has a total of three, two of which are these vandalistic edits. In one case there is a deceptive edit summary like "fix spelling" used to cover up the vandalism. -- 6SJ7 03:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. If the users vandalize, warn them. When you're out of warnings report them to WP:AIV to be blocked. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 05:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

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

semi-protection extremely high level of edit warring by anon IP's. --Strothra 03:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The anon user involved in the edit war are already blocked for 3RR. WinHunter 03:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Page protected by IanManka. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 05:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Satan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A poll was held to get a consensus on Mr. Satan's preferred name. There was much opposition, but the poll was closed on December 18, 2006. The page is still under move protection, but more importantly, the large, ugly template is still at the top of the page. It declares "this page is protected from moves until disputes have been resolved on the discussion page." We have a resolution to the disputes, of a sort. The page should be unprotected. –Gunslinger47 00:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep move protection there. From your RFPP, I sense you also feel like there's some uncertainty as to if the dispute has been resolved. You also said there was a lot of opposition, and I feel that some people may take the lack of move protection for granted and try to move the page to what they want it to be. It's too risky at the moment, so I will unfortunately have to decline your request. Nishkid64 00:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I take no offense. The header remains confusing, however. –Gunslinger47 00:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

What's confusing about it? It's just informing editors that they can not move the page to a different name until all disputes regarding the naming convention can be resolved. Nishkid64 01:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Semi-protection Persistent external link spam by anonymous IP address editors. Requesting until reviewed for Spam blacklist inclusion. --Dissolve 23:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Nishkid64 23:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Semi-protection Continuous simple vandalism by IP address editors. --Bob 23:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected --Majorly (Talk) 23:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Newpark Comprehensive School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection Continuous anonymous attacks for the last few months, presumably from students of the school. Ranges from making personal attacks on teachers and other students to changing facts. All from IP pool anonymous IP addresses, warnings have not been heeded. Jamesnp 22:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. --Majorly (Talk) 23:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Semi-protection—Recent and continuous line of anonymous users consistently stating that the series is not cancelled, when there have been no new episodes since the spring, and they give no source to repute their claims.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Semi-protection. Continuous simple vandalism by IP address editors. Jjok 19:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.--Húsönd 21:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Protection. Big non-sense controversy. One user is making changes such as "volunteers" to "unpaid workers" etc. The issue is that it is pretty much impossible to follow the situation. Edit summaries are omitted or pretty much meaningless, so this is doing lot of permanent harm. —Gennaro Prota 19:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Fully protected--Húsönd 21:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Semi-protection. An unregistered user at 84.135.233.* is insisting on his paragraph speculating on monetary loss of a Japanese entertainment group. This is a rather trivial matter but the user is unregistered and not responding to requests to discuss on the talk page. I have exceded the 3 reversion rule already. Brettr 17:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

- Declined - There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Semi-protection is not for use in content disputes. —— Eagle 101 18:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I will monitor the situation. —— Eagle 101 18:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked both users for WP:3RR. —— Eagle 101 18:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Austin St. John (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection. This page was previously protected against BLP violations, and after the article was unprotected, it never stopped. HTML comments are ignored! Andros 1337 19:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The block on user Machocarioca has expired. Please unblock his talk page so that new warnings may be added. Many thanks - FabFilmFan 13:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Un-protected. Nishkid64 15:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Was protected due to an edit war on November 27th concerning standards for Lost episode article titles. Discussions took place in Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(television), and a consensus was established with a poll. Protection is no longer needed. Thanks. -- Wikipedical Un-protected. It's been protected for long enough. Hopefully things have calmed down since then. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Full protection Two editors warring over section headers. 3RR violations for both parties. Requesting protection of page to stop edit warring. If both users are blocked for 24h, protection might not be necessary. Hbdragon88 03:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Fully protected due to revert warring. WinHunter 03:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Semi Protection requested as multiple vandals in the past few weeks from different IPs. --Cahk 02:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Nishkid64 02:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Law & Order franchise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Requesting semi-protection, as five times in the last day, an anonymous user with a dynamic IP address has removed several links in the page and seriously damaged its readability by introducing unnecessary abbreviations, ignoring earlier vandalism warnings on old IPs (See User talk:71.134.190.60, User talk:71.142.8.49). Similar problems exist on many actor bios linked to by the above linked page, but most haven't been quite so frequently hit. MrZaius 01:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Nishkid64 01:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)