Tony Sidaway (talk | contribs) |
71.115.103.149 (talk) |
||
Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
==={{article|Yugo}}=== |
==={{article|Yugo}}=== |
||
Repeated vandalism by [[User:Orphan1|Orphan1]] and [[User:Nestore|Nestore]] often adding POV, removing useful information, adding bias, is happening by drones, just check the history, espically by Orphan, along with an anon user (Believed to be Orphan) is getting frustrating. SHoud be protected from anon and new users temporarly to let the heat (mostly by orphan) to cool down. --[[User:Karrmann|Karrmann]] |
'''Orphan1 is not vandalising, he is correcting untruths. there is no heat. i am stating factual data, that i can prove. can the 13 year old kid you are helping prove i am wrong? no he can not. i thought this was a serious thing. if you continue to erase truth, and re insert lies, then your whole enterprise will just become a joke. why don't you check the facts before destroying them. have you thought of that. or is that not what you do here? i am not stating point of view. drone? i am spending my valuable time correcting mistakes. maually, while the''' '''child just rolls back to the previous version. thats droning'''. Repeated vandalism by [[User:Orphan1|Orphan1]] and [[User:Nestore|Nestore]] often adding POV, removing useful information, adding bias,'''Bold '''text'''what bias? isn't it bias, to print in a public forum, myths about an automobile that you know nothing about?. the bias is from the previous posters. i only change what i can''' '''prove.''' '''i know thousands of happy yugo owners who do not agree with the bias or this article, and with the jokes that devalue thier peoperty. maybe i should ask them to visit this site. would that penetrate your blind bias against''' '''this automobile? ---Jay Pierce orphan1.''' is happening by drones, just check the history, espically by Orphan, along with an anon user (Believed to be Orphan) is getting frustrating. SHoud be protected from anon and new users temporarly to let the heat (mostly by orphan) to cool down. --[[User:Karrmann|Karrmann]] |
||
:Page is currently protected.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 03:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC) |
:Page is currently protected.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 03:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 05:49, 14 February 2006
This page is for requesting that a page, image or template be fully protected, semi-protected or unprotected, including page-move protection.
If you would like to request a page be protected or unprotected, please list it (and sign the request) at the TOP of the current requests section below, with the reason that it needs protecting or unprotecting. Also, make sure you specify whether you want the page to be full protected or semi protected. Before you do so, however, consult Wikipedia:Protection policy for details on the purpose of protecting pages and the guidelines concerning page protection. Wikipedia:Semi-protection is the policy that covers semi-protection of heavily vandalised pages.
Only consider protection as an option when it is necessary in order to resolve your problem, and when the only solution that will assist in the solution of the problem is protection.
Generally, full page protection is to stop edit warring or severe vandalism. Semi protection is only for vandalism. Full protection is also used on templates that are frequently used and not in need of frequent edits (this includes most editorial templates; see Wikipedia:High-risk templates).
After a page has been protected, it is listed on Wikipedia:Protected page with a short description indicating why it was protected. Further discussion should take place on the Talk page of the article. Admins do not revert back to previous versions of the page, except to get rid of vandalism.
{{Editprotected}} can be used to request edits to protected pages as an alternative to requests for page unprotection.
This is not the place to discuss or dispute articles, users, or policies.
If the entry is being used for edit-warring or content disputes or contains personal attacks or uncivil comments, or any other unrelated discussion, it will be removed from this page immediately. |
Here is the log page if users want to look up whether or not pages have been protected.
Administrators: When you have fullfilled or rejected a request, please note your actions (or reasons for not acting) and, optionally, remove the request, leaving a note on the talk page of the article and/or on the talk page of the user(s) requesting protection might be good, as well.
Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests lists current protection edit requests.
Current requests for protection
- Please place new requests at the top. and use {{article|ARTICLE NAME}} when listing a page here, where ARTICLE NAME is the article or page you wish to be protected. If the page is not in main namespace, then use {{Ln|NAMESPACE|PAGE NAME}} instead. If the page in question is a talk page, use {{Lnt|NAMESPACE|PAGE NAME}} (or {{Lat|NAMESPACE|PAGE NAME}} if the page in question is an article).
User talk:SPUI
SPUI, banned for ten days by the arbitration committee for trolling, has continued to use his talk page for trolling, in particular finding ever more inventive ways to flout the ban. Please protect. --Tony Sidaway 05:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Typhoid Mary (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sterile edit war going on over the box image, while neither of the primary reverters in question (User:AriGold, User:DrBat) are participating in discussion going on on the issues behind the problem here. - SoM 02:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Check out my list of contributions; I have been involved in the discussion of the image. --DrBat 03:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Yugo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Orphan1 is not vandalising, he is correcting untruths. there is no heat. i am stating factual data, that i can prove. can the 13 year old kid you are helping prove i am wrong? no he can not. i thought this was a serious thing. if you continue to erase truth, and re insert lies, then your whole enterprise will just become a joke. why don't you check the facts before destroying them. have you thought of that. or is that not what you do here? i am not stating point of view. drone? i am spending my valuable time correcting mistakes. maually, while the child just rolls back to the previous version. thats droning. Repeated vandalism by Orphan1 and Nestore often adding POV, removing useful information, adding bias,Bold textwhat bias? isn't it bias, to print in a public forum, myths about an automobile that you know nothing about?. the bias is from the previous posters. i only change what i can prove. i know thousands of happy yugo owners who do not agree with the bias or this article, and with the jokes that devalue thier peoperty. maybe i should ask them to visit this site. would that penetrate your blind bias against this automobile? ---Jay Pierce orphan1. is happening by drones, just check the history, espically by Orphan, along with an anon user (Believed to be Orphan) is getting frustrating. SHoud be protected from anon and new users temporarly to let the heat (mostly by orphan) to cool down. --Karrmann
- Page is currently protected.--MONGO 03:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The Offspring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Repeated vandalism by anonymous users (adding false data, removing data, etc.). Alex 101 01:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- it's borderline. I'd say no for now but come back if it goes back to 8-9 vandal edits a day. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 03:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Meg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Frequent vandalism from at least 5 distinct IPs and one new registered user, apparently using the article as a chat page. Recommend semi-protection. (ESkog)(Talk) 22:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Has already been protected by another admin - no further action needed. (ESkog)(Talk) 01:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Quasi-gummi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Currently at deletion review, contents replaced with {{tempundelete}}. - brenneman{T}{L} 22:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Kurdish people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
To much POV, edit wars, and false information. Requesting Full Protection Manik666 00:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. I moved it up to FP. It's become an edit war. Oi. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 22:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Pro-Test (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Is getting vandlized by multiple people at least every few hours by multiple IP addresses; I am assuming it's some controversial recent event. Some of the IPs have been quite persistant and have been engaging in edit wars. - Damicatz 01:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Jonathan Sarfati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Page had been protected due to the edit warring of User:Agapetos_angel.
- User:Agapetos_angel filed a misleading RfPP for unprotection here, and was back to edit warring again within 36 hours and now has violated 3RR at this article for the 3rd time 2 weeks, see: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Agapetos_angel.
- Please determine actual level consensus on the article before unportecting next time. FeloniousMonk 18:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Football (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A revert war has started. User:Licinius a.k.a user:60.225.202.61 is making bizarre, unilateral changes. He seems to have something against Australian rules football. Can we have it temporarily protected please? Grant65 | Talk 17:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Anonymous editor protected it. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Current requests for unprotection
Bat Ye'or (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semiprotected citing vandalism, although there is no apparent history of such, but rather of editwarring involving a succession of (successively blocked) sockpuppets of, apparently, a banned user. Tentatively listing for unprotection as the editing atmosphere seems to have marginally improved and I'm not sure if the circumstances meet the semi-protection policy. Palmiro | Talk 17:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- The banned user (User:Wik) is still using his sockpuppets for revert warring. Wik is a permanently banned user, and he must come to realize that his sockpuppeting will not be tolerated. Semi-protection, and blocking his sockpuppets, are going to be a continual nuisance for him until he re-considers his actions. If he wants to go away and edit non-controversially somewhere else, then no-one will notice. Until then, semi-protection needs to stay. Jayjg (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Works for me. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 22:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Islamofascism (term) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article was protected on January 17th as a result of edit-warring and attempts to bury the article elsewhere. The main edit-warrior (whose actions led to page protection) seems to have quit WP. In the meantime, there were a series of contradictory and confusing votes to redirect the page or disambiguate it. As far as I can tell, they all failed to generate any kind of consensus. Can it be unprotected? IronDuke 16:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Asked about it on the talk page. Just so you know, though, generally lack of consensus is a reason to keep a page protected, not vice versa. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 03:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help. As for lack of consensus, if it were question of a robust debate still in progress, I could see keeping it protected (although a month is a hugely long time for a vote, no?). But in fact I don't think anyone has even discussed any of the many proposals in at least a week. Also, even it were to be disambiguated, it would still be a the exact same page somewhere else (however obscured) and therefore, there shouldn't be a problem with anyone editing it. The page was not protected due to content issues, per se. As I said, this all began because a user improperly redirected away from the page and started a war, and that user is now gone (and no one seems much interested in fighting over it at the moment). IronDuke 03:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Orissa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This page has been semiprotected because of editing of external links. In fact the link www.orissainfoline.com was added because it contains useful compiled statistics on Orissa, has a poem page in vernacular language which is not elsewhere. The link has more info about orissa than the present links.I do not know why the link was removed? you may kindly unprotect the page
- Sorry. No. It was protected because of what we call linkspamming. It means that you are adding the same link to several articles as a way of promoting a webpage. If you want the link added, I'd suggest discussing it on the page's talk page. They gave you 5 days to start discussing it and you did not. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 14:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- I went through your reply. First i am a new entrant to this online
encyclopaedia. Second, the external link was added a few days back and when it was deleted, i thought it to be the work of a jealous rival. Third,i have no articles and hence question of adding the same
link to several articles does not arise. Irrespective of whether i am able to add the link, i am curious about the statement that there is link spamming. I will be obliged academically if u kindly mention a few cases where there is link spamming. My email is bijan53@yahoo.com
Template:Ref ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
For some design tweaks - this template makes ugly extre inter-line space in every browser but Firefox (out of all I've tested) in all skins. Details here. I understand that this is a highly-used template: I don't neccessarily need to fix this problem myself, but I can. Anyhow it would be a great esthetic improvement if it were fixed - adding references to articles should add to their quality, but this makes them look awkward for many. Thanks. THEPROMENADER 11:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. THEPROMENADER 11:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
George W. Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I understand that in this heated socio-political environment that there are probably difficulties with vandalism upon this subject. However, 1) There are a number of ways of dealing with this, other than what could be seen as soft-censorship. 2) Is it not a right or a neccessity for people who are affected by a subject to elucidate it in a manner that -while being non-partisan/non-biased-, may contain facts that may be considered (by some) BOTH "subjective" AND pertinant? In a democracy, most especially here, in Wikimedia, something which is tantamount to 'the people's encyclopedia', must it not be allowable in these most pressing subjects for sober, backed-up, facts that are currently outside of the information radius to be given the oppourtunity to be known? re: 1) - a) could not vigilance on this one, possibly one of the most important, subjects, be extended, so that any edits are checked before publishing? b) could not a simple computerscript flag edits that have keywords/keyphrases that are by consensus agreement, biased or vandalism? Without the ability to edit, in truth, compose the truth about a matter- it is for all purposes, being censored. Here, in what I thought was the most democratic of informational databases on the Earth, I am finding what I honestly feel to be an undemocratic compliance with a biased viewpoint. For, if one can not expand, clarify, or add to the information- how can it be said to be "free" in any sense but financially? Please take this into consideration. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.64.223.203 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC).
- It's unfortunate, but George W. Bush is the biggest vandal-magnet we have and the vast vast vast majority of vandals are not logged in. Vandalism on this article tends to be of the juvenile, "impulse" type. All you have to do is create a user account and wait a few days and you will be able to edit it and really, you're even more anonymous with a user account than without because IP addresses of registered users are kept secret (only a select few have access to them). Nothing is being censored here. howcheng {chat} 21:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- As we've said recently, the entire SP policy was made because of GWB. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 22:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- But isn't SP suposted to be a temp measure? Mike (T C) 06:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Protection should be either {{vprotect}} or open editing, NOT semi-protection.
This page will always have vandalism.
Not a suitable candidate for semi-protection. Please unprotect immediately, both from moves and anon editing. --Gaulzaga 19:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Semi-protection was created precisely because of that article. Without semi-protection, it becomes impossible to edit. Also, it has been protected from moves since way before semi-protection was created; it has always been a page-move vandalism target. --cesarb 19:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- As cesar said -- this article was the entire reason behind the development of semiprotection. So no, it won't be unprotected at the moment, particularly not for an account whose only contributions so far are to ask that GWB and Girls Aloud be unprotected. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 19:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Unprotect it please!!! TOTALLY!!! --Gaulzaga 19:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- TOTALLY!!! no. --Syrthiss 20:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Duuuuuude..... <laugh> Somehow this perfectly fits my Friday so far. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 20:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
This is genuine. Geez, stop joking. Puh-leez!! --Gaulzaga 20:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Genuinely, no. You have three admins (cesarb, katefan0 and me) who have said that protection will not be lifted. Sorry. --Syrthiss 20:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Joking aside, no. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 20:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Make that 4 admins. And after 4 days, you'll be able to edit it anyway. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Joking aside, no. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 20:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Dragon Ball Z: Budokai Tenkaichi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This page should be unprotected because there is a limitless amount of bad administration occurring, with falsified information and more importantly, bad japanese naming and incorrect order of details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.68.168.68 (talk • contribs)
- This just got protected today to deal with edit warring by an anonymous user. I don't think it's quite ready for unprotection yet. You can suggest your changes on the talk page or register for an account and wait a few days to make the changes yourself. howcheng {chat} 00:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- The above IP is one of the several used by Zarbon/User:72.227.132.62 (the user behind the mass problems with that page), considering they all make the same edits to the same particular articles, with Zarbon's name signed to various edits from those IPs. He has already been warned/blocked for sock-puppetry and breaking revert rules.24.162.17.96 01:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Template:Main article ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Template:Main articles ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
There is no need for these to be protected. Radiant! locked these for "high use", but they are on so very few articles (couple hundred) compared to the real high-use templates. on Wikipedia talk:High-risk templates, we're even discussing putting a rough threshold of 5000 usages on what's considered high-use enough to think about protecting, which Radiant! also agrees with. He's left, these are very low-use, so please unprotect. -- Netoholic @ 08:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- I believe we said no to this a couple of weeks ago. "Very low use". Well I see it on about 700 articles. Plus, it can be on some articles multiple times. For now, we'll keep it protected. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)