Content deleted Content added
74.131.154.157 (talk) →Issac Newton: Reply Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply |
m rv school lulz Tag: Manual revert |
||
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
:Some elements attract more disruption than others (only 27 of 117 element articles have page protection templates), but if you look specifically at [[composition of the human body]], you'll see 11 out of the top 12 elements in the human body have articles that are semi-protected or pending changes protected. [[Potassium]] is on that list. That's not surprising given that alternative medicine and pseudoscience are contentious topics. Given the historical disruption of this article and so many related elements also being protected, I would recommend against removing protection. [[User:Daniel Quinlan|Daniel Quinlan]] ([[User talk:Daniel Quinlan|talk]]) 07:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC) |
:Some elements attract more disruption than others (only 27 of 117 element articles have page protection templates), but if you look specifically at [[composition of the human body]], you'll see 11 out of the top 12 elements in the human body have articles that are semi-protected or pending changes protected. [[Potassium]] is on that list. That's not surprising given that alternative medicine and pseudoscience are contentious topics. Given the historical disruption of this article and so many related elements also being protected, I would recommend against removing protection. [[User:Daniel Quinlan|Daniel Quinlan]] ([[User talk:Daniel Quinlan|talk]]) 07:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC) |
||
:[[File:Pictogram voting oppose.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not unprotected'''<!-- Template:RFPP#noun --> – per Daniel Quinlan's analysis. [[User:Favonian|Favonian]] ([[User talk:Favonian|talk]]) 14:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC) |
:[[File:Pictogram voting oppose.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not unprotected'''<!-- Template:RFPP#noun --> – per Daniel Quinlan's analysis. [[User:Favonian|Favonian]] ([[User talk:Favonian|talk]]) 14:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC) |
||
=== [[Issac Newton]] === |
|||
* {{pagelinks|Issac Newton}} |
|||
'''Reason:''' The protection is no longer necessary because we lost all vandalism. [[Special:Contributions/74.131.154.157|74.131.154.157]] ([[User talk:74.131.154.157|talk]]) 15:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I am a classmate to the vandaliser and had my teacher punish him. He won't do more vandalising for next month. [[Special:Contributions/74.131.154.157|74.131.154.157]] ([[User talk:74.131.154.157|talk]]) 15:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:25, 2 January 2024
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.
Requests for page protection | |
---|---|
Click here to return to Requests for page protection. Request unprotection of a page, or reducing the protection level
|
Potassium edit request for unprotection
Reason: The protection is no longer necessary because the restriction to editing has been released since 2019, so that that's a long time to remain and I spotted that Hydrogen was not blocked but just one type of vandalism emerged after the shutdown of protection. 2001:EE0:4BC2:E9E0:5DB:6154:E8B8:7AD3 (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment "The protection is working" is not a reason for unprotection. Also, "just one type of vandalism" is one too many. - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 02:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think one vandal is too many. 2001:EE0:4BC2:E9E0:5DB:6154:E8B8:7AD3 (talk) 02:44, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment "The protection is working" is not a reason for unprotection. Also, "just one type of vandalism" is one too many. - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 02:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Then how many is too many? Two? Two hundred? - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 02:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- What do you mean? 2001:EE0:4BC2:E9E0:5DB:6154:E8B8:7AD3 (talk) 03:24, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- You said "one vandal isn't too many". So how many vandals is too many? - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 03:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Then how many is too many? Two? Two hundred? - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 02:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Reading the edits surrounding the May 12, 2019 protection, IMHO this lengthy protection was needed and has largely proven effective. Nobody is preventing any editor from making specific edit requests on talk. I like to see compelling arguments that removing protection is now necessary or preferable. BusterD (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2024 (UTC) User:Materialscientist, do you have an opinion on this? BusterD (talk) 03:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Some elements attract more disruption than others (only 27 of 117 element articles have page protection templates), but if you look specifically at composition of the human body, you'll see 11 out of the top 12 elements in the human body have articles that are semi-protected or pending changes protected. Potassium is on that list. That's not surprising given that alternative medicine and pseudoscience are contentious topics. Given the historical disruption of this article and so many related elements also being protected, I would recommend against removing protection. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 07:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Not unprotected – per Daniel Quinlan's analysis. Favonian (talk) 14:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)