Welcome—request protection of a page, file, or template here. | |
---|---|
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. Request protection of a page, or increasing the protection level
Request unprotection of a page, or reducing the protection level
Request a specific edit to a protected page
Please request an edit directly on the protected page's talk page before posting here |
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 |
Current requests for protection
Place requests for new or upgrading pending changes, semi-protection, full protection, move protection, create protection, template editor protection, or upload 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.
Nicole Marciano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Temporary semi-protection Heavy vandalism the past couple days from multiple IPs. --Jmacsjmacs (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
User talk:EmmaFBI ( | user page | history | links | watch | logs)
Indefinite full protection vandalism, Indef blocked user is using talk page to continue to vandalize, also posting legal threats.Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Henry Wadsworth Longfellow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Temporary semi-protection Heavy vandalism the past couple days from multiple IPs. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Edgar Allan Poe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Temporary semi-protection Heavy vandalism the past couple days since featured on front page from multiple IPs. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 14:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Films considered the greatest ever (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-Protection. I'm an admin, and I've been monitoring this page for 4 years. Recently, numerous anons with constantly changing dynamic IPs have been adding films without following the guidelines on the talk page nor discussing changes when requested. Since the page gets quite a bit of traffic, it has become very time consuming to filter out the few constructive additions made by anons. I'd like to spend some time working on other pages! I don't think this needs to be permanent, perhaps a few weeks is enough to get people to the discussion page. Since I am involved in editing the page, I'm asking for another admin to turn on the protection. I can remove protection myself when it seems appropriate. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 10:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Semi-protected. Just don't leave it on too long :-) SoWhy 11:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Sathya Sai Baba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Temporary Full Protection and/or indefinite Semi-protection. Constant vandalism. Multiple acts of vandalism, from anonymous IPs, have occurred consistently on this article and the frequency of attack has dramatically gone up within the last 24 hours. A semi-protection would definitely help protect content from being continuously vandalized by anonymous IPs.
White adept (talk) 10:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
User:Arctic Fox/committed identity (edit | [[Talk:User:Arctic Fox/committed identity|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Full Protection Template that is personally for my use only. No one needs to be able to edit page now that it is complete. Arctic Fox 09:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Done BencherliteTalk 11:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
User talk:67.228.82.147 ( | user page | history | links | watch | logs)
Temporary semi-protection user talk of blocked user, I've asked for a block at AIV, but clearly this page needs locked down for a while.Beeblebrox (talk) 08:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- User is now blocked, keeps adding obscenity to talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Declined for now. The "cannot edit own talk page" setting is enabled on the block. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 08:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- That's odd, because they just edited it, although the anti-abuse bot reverted right away... Beeblebrox (talk) 09:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Looking at the block log, User:Deskana extended the expiry time of the block to 1 year, but accidentally disabled the setting. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 09:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
James Willis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Temporary Semi-protection vandalism. Multiple acts of vandalism have occurred on this article with in the last 12 hours since the college coach accepted a job at the rival of the school he was coaching at. A temporary semi-protection would definitely help until this cools down. (I would suggest about a week or two). Rtr10 (talk) 08:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Note: There hasn't been a lot of vandalism present on this page. Arctic Fox 10:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
User:FastLizard4 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Indefinite semi editing protection and indefinite full move protection - I had this applied to my userpage previously for quite some time, but it apparently got lost when I had revisions scrubbed from its history by an administrator. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 07:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Done BencherliteTalk 11:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
David Cook (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Temporary semi-protect. Increasing level of IP vandalism. MartinezMD (talk) 07:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Just watchlist and revert. Lectonar (talk) 11:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Kyle Schickner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Temporary semi-protection vandalism, After a short period of protection, this sad, jelous person is continuing his regular anon vandalism on this page..triwbe (talk) 06:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC) Template:User:Arctic Fox/Confirmed
Larry Elder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Full protection vandalism, one user has been systematically changing the description of the individual from libertarian to conservative or republican repeatedly, without offering any citation or refutation of the references that back up the original claim. It has started an edit war. 75.27.237.187 (talk) 05:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Rooster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Indefinite semi-protection, it is the first page from dab cock, consequently receiving high level of vandalism. XLerate (talk) 05:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Steven Walling (talk) 06:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Young Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, Article subject to (possibly) heavy anon vandalism and frequent violations of NPOV and original research. That's my two scents 05:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. I really do not see persistent vandalism, only a spike here and there. Just watchlist and revert. Lectonar (talk) 11:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Bobby Trendy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Temporary semi-protection vandalism, SPAs and anonymous IPs removing DOB and birth name, replacing with unsourced content. .Pinkadelica Say it... 04:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Steven Walling (talk) 06:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Monsoon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Temporary semi-protection vandalism, On going IP vandalism. .Bidgee (talk) 03:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - Kevin (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Oath of office of the President of the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Article was protected yesterday, and protection expired. Article continues to have a large number of edits by unregistered users. --Larrybob (talk) 03:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Steven Walling (talk) 06:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Fox News Channel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-protection: The article has been a frequent target of recent vandalism again. -- Luke4545 (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
A Double Shot at Love with the ikki twins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Temporary full protection vandalism, This page has been subjected to an increase in unsourced spoiler-vandalism by anon IPs due to the upcoming, unaired, season finale. It would be great if we could get semi-protection for a couple weeks until after the finale airs. Thanks!.Plastikspork (talk) 01:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Horses in warfare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Full protection of last stable version of article for a week to 10 days. Attempts by editors new to an article trying to rewrite a GA class article and an A-class Military History WikiProject article, discussions on the talk page of article getting tenditious, no true consensus, one major long-term editor on vacation and unavailable to comment, two others swamped in real life EVERYONE needs to cool down and expressly leave article alone. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Horses_in_warfare&oldid=265402826 This] is the last stable version of the article. Montanabw(talk) 01:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Declined - Full protection is used to prevent edit warring or blatant vandalism. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Dragonball Evolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Temporary semi-protection vandalism, The IPs are getting happy trashing the film in this article as its release date comes closer and its getting a bit heavy. Some semi-protection would be appreciated by the active editors..-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. caknuck ° resolves to be more caknuck-y 02:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
The Adventures of Tom Sawyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Vandalism from multiple IP addresses that has proved confusing for the logged-in users to manage properly..Richard Cavell (talk) 01:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. caknuck ° resolves to be more caknuck-y 02:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Temporary full protection vandalism, many unique users are making deconstructive edits.Lenerd (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
User talk:81.102.233.188 ( | user page | history | links | watch | logs)
Temporary semi-protection A blocked user who is utilizing his talk page to make personal attacks on another editor (diff and block log). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Fdsa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Indefinite semi-create-protection, This article has been created and subsequently deleted four times sense 2006.Mifter (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Already done. (full create-protection) by PMDrive1061. BencherliteTalk 23:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks/qualimpintersect ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Full protection: Per Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks, all "hook" subpages should be fully protected. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Fully protected BencherliteTalk 23:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Mercy Otis Warren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Temporary semi protection vandalism, Major vandalism, block to just take heat off the article. .Andy (talk) 22:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of nine days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Ant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. Martin451 (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- request temporary protection as article appears on main page. Martin451 (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- And it's nearly off the main page anyway (just over 30 minutes left). BencherliteTalk 23:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Michel Thomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
semi-protection, edit war between successive IPs over inclusion of external link. Likely socks of former article disputants User:Rivenberg and Michel Thomas' former private investigator. Steve T • C 21:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hi. Just wondering why this has been moved to this section without further comment; do I take it that the request has been denied? Steve T • C 16:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Semi-protected 2 weeks. BencherliteTalk 23:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Total Drama Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Indefinite semi-protection, all other protections haven't helped at all, the page is vandalized by IPs every 2 minutes. Elbutler (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. In particular, the last set of IP edits were all apparently constructive. BencherliteTalk 23:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Sigmund Freud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Indefinite full protection dispute, Gets vandalized nearly everyday. So far, at least 26 times this month alone..Grika Ⓣ 18:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Is it a dispute or vandalism? If the latter, then sorry, but Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. GbT/c 19:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Storm (Marvel Comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Full protection there is an editor trolling this article by ignoring guidelines and reverting to a nonsensical revision, violating WP:OWNERSHIP. A thread has already been initiated on the talk page, but (s)he seems to refuse to discuss the edits. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Question: If it's only one editor, why not warn them for edit-warring and/or request a block? SoWhy 21:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Clarence Thomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Continue full protection. This page was recently locked for five days, following an edit war, a submission to medcab, [1], and a request by myself to lock the page, [2] (full disclosure: the lock arose from the edit war before my request to lock the page was considered, see [3]). That block will expire shortly, but the underlying dispute has not been resolved, despite the intervention of other editors and mediators; in the absence of either a consensus or a block, it seems clear that an undesirable edit war will resume. That being so, and although the protected version is, naturally, the wrong version, I suggest that the page remain fully protected pending the development of consensus (or at least until mediation produces a compromise). This request complies with Wikipedia:Protection policy, I believe: "On pages that are experiencing edit warring, temporary full protection can force the parties to discuss their edits on the talk page, where they can reach consensus." Simon Dodd (talk) 15:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Note: As long as the page is protected, you should contact the protecting admin Samir (talk · contribs). If he does not react and it really continues, please re-request. SoWhy 21:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've now left a message on his talk page for him. Apologies for any wikiquette violation, I didn't realize the request should go to the protecting admin rather than to the general pool.Simon Dodd (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- No problem. Generally it's a common courtesy to ask the acting admin if you need their actions reversed/extended/changed because they know best why they acted a certain way. For example in this case I can't be sure if he did not intend something with setting the protection to expire. Asking also prevents the illusion of "admin-shopping", i.e. asking multiple admins / at multiple venues to increase the likelihood that one admin does as you want. Regards SoWhy 22:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've now left a message on his talk page for him. Apologies for any wikiquette violation, I didn't realize the request should go to the protecting admin rather than to the general pool.Simon Dodd (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
GlaxoSmithKline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Will be Protected There is a lot of vandalism of that page. I asked Wikipedia if theres vandalism on that page they said yes. There was vandalism on the talk page since August 2008. The Wikipedia administrators vote for 100% protected page GlaxoSmithKline in the future. I'm happy this page I asked will be protected in the future. This company is based in London GlaxoSmithKlineplc. (User:Dungcamed) 17:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. caknuck ° resolves to be more caknuck-y 02:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Current requests for unprotection
Before posting, first discuss with the protecting admin at 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.
My Life Would Suck Without You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Unprotection, The single has already been released in digital stores. The single is #1 on iTunes under "Pop", and is likely to make it's first chart listing after the release of the new Billboard charts on Thursday. Even if it has not charted on any major chart, it has JUST been released. We can use a "future singles" template on the article since it hasn't yet charted. El cangri386 Sign! or Talk 00:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Not unprotected - There is an ongoing discussion of this article at deletion review. caknuck ° resolves to be more caknuck-y 02:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Template:Football player statistics 1 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
semi-protection please also apply to: Template:Football player statistics 2 Template:Football player statistics 3 Template:Football player statistics 4 Template:Football player statistics 5.
This has been protected for a while as a high-vis template. This is fine, but the template has a number of issues, both simple (misspellings) and more complex (more parameters required). This could be a really useful template but, simply, needs more work. It's also not one which would expect vandalism. Can it be put to semi-protection so registered users can continue to develop it? --Pretty Green (talk) 13:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Super Bowl XLIII (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Unprotection: Article was semi-protected two days ago for a month after the two participating teams were announced. There is no evidence to suggest that the article is still under threat of heavy vandalism, and there is still a week and a half until game time. MickMacNee (talk) 05:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Administrator note Please ask the protecting admin, Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs), first. Regards SoWhy 07:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Either an admin agrees it is not appropriate and makes his own peace with reversing another by asking him first, or he doesn't. Expecting the requester to act as a go-between to get him a permission slip to act is not realy on. I have an account, an innappropriate protection makes no difference to me. I brought it here for action from those who have the bit. If inaction/indifference is the result, then so be it, maybe Flagged Protection is needed more than I thought. MickMacNee (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Common consensus/practice here is to allow the protecting admin to consider a request first, which is why it says "If you do want a page that exists unprotected, please try to ask the protecting admin first before making a request here." at the top of this section. As said below, everything else would just encourage admin-shopping. Regards SoWhy 21:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe we just need a bot then. To notify admins that a protection they made is now queried at RFPP, and that other admins are waiting for their input until they will say anything. I fail to see why a request cannot just be made here, and admins cannot be trusted not to wheel war without communicating with each other directly. Why the insistence making everybody else jump through hoops, when all they would be doing in that case is acting as carrier pidgeons between the people who ultimately would have to communicate with each other anyway. Coming to the request for unprotection noticeboard is hardly admin shopping. I am not interested in requesting a review of an admin, but a review of a protection. There is a subtle but important difference. MickMacNee (talk) 23:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Common consensus/practice here is to allow the protecting admin to consider a request first, which is why it says "If you do want a page that exists unprotected, please try to ask the protecting admin first before making a request here." at the top of this section. As said below, everything else would just encourage admin-shopping. Regards SoWhy 21:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, you brought it here after commenting on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User_page_tirade, where you knew the situation was already being discussed. Such an action can only serve to pit one admin against another. It is a common courtesy, one extended by most admins on this project, that an admin action is not overturned unless or until the initial admin is made aware of the situation. The amazing thing is that after the initial request for unprotection here, the discussion on WP:AN, and this second request, Rich Farmbrough still has not been made aware of any of these discussions. - auburnpilot talk 17:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- That would seem to be the point - after all this time, who contacts who is still considered a more important issue than judging the appropriateness of an action. What would happen if he was on a Wikibreak I wonder, could nobody do anything? MickMacNee (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Either an admin agrees it is not appropriate and makes his own peace with reversing another by asking him first, or he doesn't. Expecting the requester to act as a go-between to get him a permission slip to act is not realy on. I have an account, an innappropriate protection makes no difference to me. I brought it here for action from those who have the bit. If inaction/indifference is the result, then so be it, maybe Flagged Protection is needed more than I thought. MickMacNee (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- High-traffic article, history suggests high probability of continued vandalism. Why shouldn't this be protected? Grsz11 17:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- When you can see the entirety of the last three days worth of edits on one history page (50 edits), and the fact that IP edits and registered edits also comprised just over one page (50 edits) for the three days before the event that triggered protection, then I am totally unconvinced of any claim it is currently 'high traffic' or at risk for a month. High traffic when teams are announced, sure, high traffic when the game is on, sure. High traffic for an entire month? Citation needed. MickMacNee (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Declined It's still too soon to un-protect since the wave of vandalism will likely continue immediately after un-protection. - auburnpilot talk 22:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- A grand total of 9 distinct human editors have editted it in the two days since protection was applied. I fail to see what "too soon" means in this context at all, or where the indication of a likely resumption comes from. All this says to me is you are happy to keep it protected right through to the day of the game and beyond. If that's the intention, then say so. The above implies you are thinking it could be unprotected tomorrow, which makes no sense to me at all. MickMacNee (talk) 23:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Sildenafil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-protected There is no Vandalism in this article anymore. It has been awarded unprotection article. I asked Wikipedia if there is vandalism they said no. I asked them the other day. This article is about a trademark name for Viagra, and Revatio both marketed by Pfizer a pharmaceutical company in the United States only. Wikipedia customers give 100% votes for a unprotection page. So this page is unprotected by a Wikipedia award. (User:Dungcamed) 16:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Unprotected I have left the move protection intact. caknuck ° resolves to be more caknuck-y 02:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Current requests for edits to a protected page
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 Wikipedia:Suggestions for COI compliance), the
{{Edit COI}}
template should be used. - Requests to move move-protected pages should be made at Wikipedia: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.
Fulfilled/denied requests
Roman calendar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Unprotection: Article was semi-protected on 1 April 2008 because an anonymous editor refused to discuss controversial changes on talk page. Similar protection of Julian calendar caused by the same anonymous editor was only temporary, and has not recurred since then. — Joe Kress (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
User talk: 76.67.54.35 (edit | [[Talk:user talk: 76.67.54.35|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am no longer blocked so my page should be unprotected.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.54.35 (talk • contribs)
Power Rangers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Temporary full protection, edit war going on. Elbutler (talk) 21:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Declined, not really heated at the moment. Warnings and/or blocks should work at the moment. SoWhy 21:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Maria Sharapova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-protection. Constant disruption from IP hopping blocked editor. LeaveSleaves 20:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Gimmetrow 21:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Jelena Jankovic' (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-protection. Constant disruption from IP hopping blocked editor. LeaveSleaves 20:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Gimmetrow 21:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Semi-protection. Constant disruption from IP hopping blocked editor. LeaveSleaves 20:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Gimmetrow 21:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gpirate ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Indefinite cascading full protection dispute, Please protect Gpirate page from deletion.Wikisudia (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
User talk:198.200.181.209 ( | user page | history | links | watch | logs)
Protectect user from editing own talk page - Abuse of user talk page by 198.200.181.209.
- User(s) blocked. Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GbT/c 19:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Pascual Izquierdo Egea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi protection, constant vandalism by single user account.
- User(s) blocked. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
OC Transpo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-protection: The reason behind this request is that the service mentionned by the article, OC Transpo, is currently undergoing a strike that is more than forty days old and that is really angering the population. As such, there has been considerable vandalism done on the OC Transpo article and we would like to prevent that. --Deenoe 12:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. SoWhy 13:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Adrian Durham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
semi-protection vandalism, Various IPs and new users have vandalised or added their opinions to the article, this has been happening occasionally for some time but the vandalism has increased recently.—Snigbrook 12:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. SoWhy 13:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Gossip Girl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-protection, An almost daily target of vandalism by at least six anonymous editors/IP addresses. The participants blatantly ignore edit notes outlining Wikipedia:Verifiability. Editors with anything constructive to contribute will log in. -- James26 (talk) 08:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. SoWhy 09:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
User talk:Cunard ( | user page | history | links | watch | logs)
indefinite full move protection User request. Cunard (talk) 08:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Move protected. SoWhy 09:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
User talk:Daedalus969 ( | user page | history | links | watch | logs)
indefinite full move protection Page-move vandalism. Cunard (talk) 08:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Move protected. SoWhy 09:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Martin Luther King, Jr. Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
indefinite full move protection Page-move vandalism. Cunard (talk) 08:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Move protected. SoWhy 09:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
List of UFC champions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Anon IPs repeatedly edit section titles in a manner that breaks hundreds of links in other articles that point to these sections. Also, they are repeatedly adding tons of extra links in violation of WP:OVERLINK. .2008Olympianchitchat 06:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SoWhy 07:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
List of Fairy Tail characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Temporary semi protection, repeatedly being hit by anonymous editors. AnyPerson (talk) 06:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 1 day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SoWhy 07:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
DMX (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Temporary semi-protection vandalism, 10 IP/account vandals in the last 48 hours. Some IP's don't get reverted immediately, see talk pages in history.Andrewlp1991 (talk) 05:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of one day. Tiptoety talk 05:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Young Jeezy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-protection: The article Young Jeezy has continuiously been hacked by unregistered users changing his birth date and make other changes with no source at all. His birth date is cited from a reliable source and continues to be attacked.Mcelite (talk) 03:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. SoWhy 07:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Keith Olbermann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-protection: The article has yet again become a frequent target of vandalism recently. -- Luke4545 (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. caknuck ° resolves to be more caknuck-y 06:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Ed Werder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
semi-protection Excessive vandalism within the past few minutes from different IPs. Willking1979 (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Semi-protected by J.delanoy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Tiptoety talk 03:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Geekologie ( | article | history | links | watch | logs)
Indefinite create-protection, talk page of create-protected article, repeatedly re-created for no good reason.Beeblebrox (talk) 00:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Creation protected Tiptoety talk 00:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Cheat Codes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Either delete it or change its content to #REDIRECT [[Cheat code#Cheat code]]
for solving double redirection. --Xqt (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Playground (Lindsay Lohan song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Either delete it or change its content to #REDIRECT [[Lindsay Lohan]]
for solving double redirection. --Xqt (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)