→Current requests for protection: Mark McGowan |
→{{la|Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks}}: Acebrock has his "facts" wrong as usual...I never semi-protected the page[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Talk%3ASeptember+11%2C |
||
Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
===={{la|Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks}}==== |
===={{la|Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks}}==== |
||
'''Unprotect''' debate tha caused talk page protection is long over, plus the page was protected in violation of policy: a single user was banned and he was still debating as an anon, when [[user:MONGO|MONGO]] semi-protected the page. That was more than two months ago--[[User talk:Acebrock|Acebrock]] 10:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC) |
'''Unprotect''' debate tha caused talk page protection is long over, plus the page was protected in violation of policy: a single user was banned and he was still debating as an anon, when [[user:MONGO|MONGO]] semi-protected the page. That was more than two months ago--[[User talk:Acebrock|Acebrock]] 10:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
*Acebrock has his "facts" wrong as usual...I never semi-protected the page[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Talk%3ASeptember+11%2C+2001+attacks], and allowing it to be unsemied will only permit further harassment from indefinitely banned Cplot and his sock army.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 14:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
===={{la|Anal stretching}}==== |
===={{la|Anal stretching}}==== |
Revision as of 14:09, 19 January 2007
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.
Mark McGowan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)}
Semi protection. On going vandalism of the page from un-registered users. This is related to the Jade Goody issue, following his announcement that he's going to organise a publicity stunt to support her. Looks like people's attention is being drawn to the wiki article here on various forums, and causing people to vent against him. --Barberio 13:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
User talk:FasterPussycatWooHoo ( | user page | history | links | watch | logs)
Full protection. User has been using his talk page to mount personal attacks on User:Naconkantari, including false accusations of malice, for two weeks [1] [2] [3]. Note that the most recent of these attacks was less than two hours ago. He has also personally attacked me [4] after I reverted him when he attempted to impersonate the founder of a WikiProject (see [5]). jgpTC 13:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Shigeru Miyamoto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-protection - IP edits trying to add him that he's dead (which isn't the case) // Gargaj 13:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Trivium (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
semi-protection A great deal of vandalism in the past day, from around 4 different individuals. 1 is the main source - but others are also blanking, writing nonsense etc. It was semi-protected before, and I think it should be again. AsicsTalk 11:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
semi-protection A lot of IP vandalism going on non-stop. --Caldorwards4 08:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Semi-protected Much ip vandalism over the last two days. TSO1D 12:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Semi-Protect, recent attempts to vandalize the page were very evident. --Cahk 05:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. -- Natalya 12:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
User talk:Sherurcij ( | user page | history | links | watch | logs)
Semi-Protect, have a frequent anonymous editor randomly adding warning templates to my User Talk page for the past few days, gets tiring for myself and User:Kralizec! to continually revert the baseless vandalism. I haven't traced the various IP addresses being used (multiple, so simple IP-blocking won't help), but I imagine this is John Moore trying to be a muckraker again, as he has been banned multiple times from Wikipedia for harrassing me, threatening legal action (against both WMF and myself), trolling, edit-warring and similar bad behavior. A simple lock-down of the user-talk page for the next week or two would be greatly appreciated. Much thanks. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 03:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Semi-protected You might want to create a subpage for unregistered users to comment in though? --Robdurbar 12:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Semi-Protect As the merger between bellsouth has taken place and with the cinglar rebranding i feel semi-protection for a week or so may proactively prevent any vandalism.(Ke5crz 05:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC))
Declined Unlike GWB, we don't do pre-emptive action --Robdurbar 12:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Semi-Protect from abundant drive-by nonsense. Look at the history page and count the words 'revert' and 'vandalism', you'll see what I mean. Not sure how long semi-protection will have to last; give it two weeks and see if things don't improve. eritain 11:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.. Borderline, but the fact that there's been much less than usual over the last week or so has pushed it into 'no'. --Robdurbar 12:51, 19 January 2007 (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.
Wikipedia:Esperanza ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Wikipedia talk:Esperanza ( | project page | history | links | watch | logs)
Request to unprotect- The talk page for Esperanza was protected due to an edit war over adding a notice to a discussion gag rule [6]. The discussion, which occurred on WP:DRV/EA is now over and there is no reason to keep the page protected from adding the notice in question.
The main Esperanza page on WP:EA, however, was protected due to an edit war over a paragraph regarding the DRV debate. [7] If there is still a doubt over the unprotection of WP:EA, I would be happy to discuss the paragraph in question on WT:EA.--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 04:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Transnistria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Request to unprotect or change to semiprotect. It was protected in 30 December, I believe 3 weeks is enough.--MariusM 16:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Not yet, in my opinion. This user ought to seek more common ground on the page's Talk. He has repeatedly been asked if he will abstain from edit warring or reverting if the page is unprotected (a "gentlemen's agreement" and seek to dissolve differences in Talk.) He has not committed himself to this. Too early still. - Mauco 19:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- A page fully protected for 3 weeks? Too long, IMHO. I suggest it's time to find options other than protected the page. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Unprotected --Robdurbar 12:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- A page fully protected for 3 weeks? Too long, IMHO. I suggest it's time to find options other than protected the page. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks (edit | [[Talk:Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Unprotect debate tha caused talk page protection is long over, plus the page was protected in violation of policy: a single user was banned and he was still debating as an anon, when MONGO semi-protected the page. That was more than two months ago--Acebrock 10:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Acebrock has his "facts" wrong as usual...I never semi-protected the page[8], and allowing it to be unsemied will only permit further harassment from indefinitely banned Cplot and his sock army.--MONGO 14:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Anal stretching (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Request to unprotect.
- 1) This article doesn't seem to be listed on WP:Protect :(
- 2) The article was protected from recreation over 1 month ago (articles are not supposed to be protected for too long) and there seems to be no contest that the article should rightfully exist
- 3) The article was unilaterally protected by Guy to prevent recreation of the article - this was not a finding of the deletion review, i.e. no admins found that the article had no merits to exist in a rightful form, instead they found that the article [had paragraphs that] ' read like a how-to guide ' and had bad/incomplete referencing. Therefore the protection to prevent recreation has no real basis.
Side note: In his defense, Guy will say that he protected the article to prevent it from recreation from me because I recreated the article 3 times in a period of an hour or so in an attempt to fix the 2 problems found by deletion review. This was a misunderstanding -- Guy saw this as ill will -- when I was näively trying to fix an article and add the relevant templates while it was quickly being redeleted because of some odd thing called G4. You the reader must please accept good-faith on my part, and unprotect the article so that I (and millions of other wikiusers) can recreate the article without the problems found in its original Deletion Review. Now that I understand what G4 is, I will be sure to only recreate/create the article complying with the complaints found by Deletion Review, allthewhile being significantly different to the deleted version. Thank-you Rfwoolf 12:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Current requests for significant 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.
Article has recently been protected due to edit warring. One the parties involved appears to have committed a 3RR violation in the process (please refer to this checkuser request for details), hence requesting article to be reverted to the last revision from before the edit war. - Cyrus XIII 01:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Fulfilled/denied requests
Requesting semi-protection. Article is receiving sudden rash of "poop" & "shit" type childish vandalism. Featured article that needs a little help from the vandals. AuburnPilottalk 06:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC) ((Note that despite the fact that vandalism usually des happen on front page article, we tend not to sp them. Why I'm not positive, but I'm sure an admin can explain.))--Wizardman 06:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Declined, as per Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection. Khoikhoi 06:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well that's what I get for never viewing the Main page...had I noticed, I wouldn't have reported. Thanks for the quick reply anyways. AuburnPilottalk 06:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Wireless From AT&T (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-Protect As the merger between bellsouth has taken place and with the cinglar rebranding i feel semi-protection for a week or so may proactively prevent any vandalism.(Ke5crz 05:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC))
Move Protect As Cingular has recently changed names the pages has been moved back and forth over the last 48 hours From articles ranging from ATT Wireless, Cingular, to what it is currently named. a move protect would be helpfull till we finally figure out what it's name should be. (Currently this is the brand giving in sources I have seen.) EnsRedShirt 03:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Move Protection for now. Hopefully a consensus about the title can be found soon. TSO1D 04:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
American Revolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Duribald 20:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Agree with the request. It is a recurring problem, but has become worse in the last few days. Blueboar 21:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Full protection - an edit war has started. Nareklm 20:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Fully protected due to revert warring. Nishkid64 20:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Semi-protect - High level IP vandalism from multiple users. -- TimVickers 19:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Nishkid64 20:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Campeonato Brasileiro Série A (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
protect. Revert war just emerged and User:21JuL74 insists blank sourced material and ignore Wikipedia: Verifiability. --Ragnarok Addict 19:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Fully protected due to edit war.--Húsönd 21:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Louis Pasteur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Catchpole 17:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Nishkid64 20:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Turkey (bird) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
semi-protect Been getting vandal attacks from a wide range of anons (who could be proxies) for the last 48 hours. It seems that there is vandalism every 2 hours or so, with multiple instances of sandboxes/vandalism. A semi-protect for a couple of days can take off the attention I think. Baristarim 16:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a few days. Nishkid64 20:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Scranton Preparatory School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
semi-protect or protect There has been lots of abuse. A school administrator wants it protected. Mike6271 16:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Nishkid64 20:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Tadcaster Grammar School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
semi-protect. Lots of anon vandalism. — cBuckley (Talk • Contribs) 16:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Nishkid64 20:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Semi-protection to advert or at least contain an imminent edit war, following the removal of uncited information per WP:V. A checkuser request to see whether Darkcat21 and 62.57.22.131 are the same person and in 3RR violation is in progress, but since this editor appears to operate from a variable IP address and has proven to be very determined to protect his/her contributions even when at odds with Wikipedia policy, blocking IP based edits would still help a great deal to diffuse the situation. - Cyrus XIII 15:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Fully protected due to edit war.--Húsönd 21:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Kristiansund (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
semi-protect. Being edited to read cusswords and non-facts Rbotti 13:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Also, the offending IP has been blocked. -- Natalya 17:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Requesting semi protection. A anon editor repeatedly adds highly controversial unsourced material about living persons.Itsmejudith 11:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Nishkid64 20:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Our Lady of Fatima University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Request to unprotect the school may be facing some controversies in the past but i dont find a necessity to protect it like other controversial articles that need further explanations. controversial inputs in an article can be cited and semi-protecting it may only lead to knowledgeable unregistered users at bay †Bloodpack† 15:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Un-protected. It's been protected for long enough. Hopefully things have calmed down since then. Nishkid64 21:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
This has been protected for over two weeks now. The hanging of Saddam is long over, protection is no longer needed. 141.211.175.235 15:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Un-protected. It's been protected for long enough. Hopefully things have calmed down since then. Nishkid64 21:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Turkish coffee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Requesting semi-protection due to anon disruption. Khoikhoi 03:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Semi-protected until the user stops or goes to the talk page to discuss his/her changes. Nishkid64 03:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)