Revision as of 15:43, 30 January 2005 view sourceTabib (talk | contribs)1,162 edits Safavids page protection request + signing my message← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:16, 30 January 2005 view source Astronautics~enwiki (talk | contribs)8,754 edits →[]: re: TabibNext edit → | ||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
=== ] === | === ] === | ||
I request page protection for the ] untill my dispute with the ] is solved. Please, refer to the ] and ] for details.--] 15:43, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC) | I request page protection for the ] untill my dispute with the ] is solved. Please, refer to the ] and ] for details.--] 15:43, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC) | ||
:Why is protection necessary in order for the two of you to resolve your dispute? ] 19:16, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC) | |||
=== ] === | === ] === |
Revision as of 19:16, 30 January 2005
Shortcut- ]
This page is for requesting that a page or image be protected or unprotected.
See Misplaced Pages:Protection policy for details on the purpose of protecting pages and the guidelines concerning page protection. If you would like to request a page be protected or unprotected, please list it (and the date) below, with the reason that it needs protecting or unprotecting.
When considering a reason for unprotection you may want to consider the reason given for protection at Misplaced Pages:Protected page (or lack thereof). Please remove requests once they have been fulfilled or withdrawn.
This is not the place to discuss or dispute articles, users, or policies.
Current requests
- Please place new requests at the top.
Safavids
I request page protection for the Safavids untill my dispute with the user Pantherarosa is solved. Please, refer to the Safavids talk page and for details.--Tabib 15:43, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Why is protection necessary in order for the two of you to resolve your dispute? silsor 19:16, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
Iglesia Ni Cristo
There was an obviously POV revert done to this page recently deleting links to viewpoints opposing the church in the article and questions made about its teachings. I restored the page to an earlier version, but being a former member of this organization, I know that members will come and edit this article so that it becomes POV in favor of the Church without any balance whatsoever.
I humbly request protection on this page as to preserve neutrality.
Male circumcision
At 7:57 today, a protection warning was placed on the discussion section of this page. This said the page would be protected if "Further disruptive edits, vandalism, or an edit war in progress" occured. Thereafter, exactly one edit was made, a word choice issue that had been resolved amicably on the discussion page. Protection ensued. The notice in the protection log explains that this one done unilaterally by one admin at the personal request of one user; this user is about one fourth of the slow edit skirmishing that this article perenially experiences. Progress was being made in spite of these smirmishes. Unprotection would demonstrate wikifaith. Shimmin 05:54, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
- That user seems to think that this page is in need of a rewrite. A quick glance at the history shows this article has been the subject of a long, long, long standing NPOV dispute, and has been repeatedly protected and reverted. I think he's got a point, so yes, I protected this page and linked to a work-in-progress subpage. This is not uncommon in cases such as this. →Raul654 06:20, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Yet, that user has not even begun the rewrite at the temp page. I find it disturbing, and a demonstration of lack of wikifaith, that the request of a single user should trump the terms of the protection warning, which said, "The Misplaced Pages would like to Assume good faith, and ask editors to calmly and rationally approach a resolution before the article is protected." Exactly when was time given for this process to be carried out?
- The user who wants the rewrite is one of about four users (two on each side) who in my opinion are chiefly responsible for the slow-cooking edit war surrounding this article. I see no reason to believe that a rewrite initiative driven by that user will solve the problem. Or is the goal indefinite protection?
- As a controversial topic, this article will probably always suffer from constant edit skirmishing, minus a rewrite by a genius of neturality. The user in question is not a genius of neutrality on this particular issue, as a glance at the article talk page will show. I understand that protection can give a chance for tempers to cool, and cooler heads to prevail, yet this has not worked any time this article has been protected in the past, and if any things, protection has merely caused cooler heads to become frustrated and walk away.
- If the problem is frequent reversions, protection is a singularly inappropriate response, since it not only reverts everything done to this article in the last several months, but preemptively reverts anything anyone might have to say to improve the article. In a sense, this protection violates the three-revert rule by at least an order of magnitude. Shimmin 13:33, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
I can't be online 24 hours a day, but I've made a start. Please contribute at ]. Exploding Boy 17:48, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
Gliding action
Ongoing edit war. Has now escalated to the point where disputed messages are being removed. Please protect. - Jakew 23:40, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about protecting this, there is a lot of editing back and forth but it isn't just reverts, the article is changing a lot. silsor 01:21, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Now look - we've got another pair of reverts (the second at my request, because of 3RR). This always happens when this user (User:Robert Blair, but often logs out, I suspect in order to get around 3RR) gets involved. Sigh. - Jakew 01:27, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Sister project templates
Template:Wikiquote, Template:Wikiquotepar, Template:Wiktionary, Template:Wiktionarypar, Template:Wikibooks, Template:Wikibookspar, Template:Cookbook, Template:Cookbookpar, Template:Economics, Template:Wikisource, Template:Wikisourcepar, Template:Wikisourcecat, Template:Wikisource author, Template:Commons, Template:Commonscat, Template:Wikinews, Template:Wikispecies
This is getting close to (if not already beyond) a point where me and Netoholic should be banned according to the Three-revert rule. Naturally, I don't want to be banned. Netoholic has listed Template:Sisterproject for deletion, which is fine, but he also insists on removing it from the above template, which isn't. (It goes against policy, and prevents people from understanding context.) I would like to suggest that the templates are protected when including Template:Sisterproject until the vote at at WP:TFD is over, whereupon the template will either be removed or kept. -- Itai 11:01, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Let me get this straight... he's listed Template:Sisterproject for WP:TFD and he purposely removed that template from the above templates? -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:08, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- There certainly is no policy which suggests that a bad template have to be kept in place while up for TFD. Itai, rather than testing Template:Sisterproject on a few templates, created it yesterday and added it to a couple dozen very active ones. When there is dispute, the best option is to revert to the most stable version. If he just needs an example, why not just do it on one then? -- Netoholic @ 16:13, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
Winter Soldier Investigation and Vietnam Veterans Against the War
These two articles appear to have been protected either by mistake, or without reason. There does not appear to be a request for protection listed here. There is no reason for protection given in the Edit Summaries of the articles. The admin doing the protecting has chosen not to list the articles on the Protected Page List. Please unprotect. -Rob
- You know exactly why 172 protected them. You and TDC have been edit warring over these articles and caused them to be protected on four separate occasions in the last month, and every single time the two of you manage to restart the edit war as soon as you discover they are unprotected again. silsor 04:59, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
- I concur based on the page history. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Besides, if we did let you edit or continue your edit war, one of you, or both of you will likely be blocked for violation of WP:3RR. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:26, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)- Of course I know why 172 protected the articles just a few minutes after they get vandalized - just as he has done multiple times in the past. I never said otherwise, and the facts remain:
- The articles appear to have been protected by mistake, or without reason. No reason is given.
- The articles have been protected without listing them on the Protected Page List.
- No one has requested the protections, nor has the 3 Revert Rule been violated, so I must assume the unexplained protections are at the whim of the admin doing the protecting.
- Finally, and most importantly, if the articles have been protected at least 4 times over the past month, as you say, then perhaps it is time to get a clue: It ain't working. Might I suggest instead that the interested parties be made to raise their disagreements in a civil manner on the discussion pages, and work toward a resolution acceptable to all concerned?
- Until that is done, please remove the unexplained, undocumented, unasked-for and (until someone breaks the 3-revert-rule) unwarranted protection. And as an appeal to the less self-important Admins out there that have a moment to spare, can you at least fix the spelling and grammar errors inflicted upon these two articles by the most recent reverts? Thank you. -Rob
- I retract my inappropriate comment, which was supposely out of jest. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:44, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- By the way, the fact that I concurred, was on the grounds that should the articles been left unprotected, an edit war would still continue. Even if either of you stay out of bounds of the 3RR violation, it would be just one revert after another. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:55, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Of course I know why 172 protected the articles just a few minutes after they get vandalized - just as he has done multiple times in the past. I never said otherwise, and the facts remain:
For the record, the only reason I am reverting it is to prevent plagiarized material from making its way into the article. This user has been writing articles using cut and paste internet sources for quite some time, denies it when caught, argues that although the passages are exactly he same it is not plagiarism, and "graciously" decides on changing a word or two so it is not a 100% match any more. TDC 14:23, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
For the record, the only reason TDC reverts is to prevent two-thirds of the content in the articles from appearing in print -- content which TDC variously describes as "POV," "garbage," and "bullshit" but not plagiarized. Failing to support such assertions, TDC resorts to editing quotation marks or attributions out of passages and then cleverly tries to point to those passages as plagiarism. When questioned about it, TDC avoids the discussion pages like the plague while swearing to do blind reverts ad infinitum. Very productive. -Rob
Roger Williams (theologian)
A lot of vandalism has been happening here lately, and it's not a very prominent page; it was erased yesterday and wasn't corrected until just a few minutes ago. Protection good. Cookiecaper 04:16, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- It looks like infrequent vandalism. I disagree with the request. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:54, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
See also
- Dispute resolution
- Vandalism in progress
- List of protected pages
- Protection policy
- Alternatives to the standard protection policy:
- m:Protected pages considered harmful
- m:The Wrong Version
- Protection log