Misplaced Pages

Marked with Vprotected. -- AllyUnion (talk) 03:48, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Taipei_American_School

This page is being continuously reverted, changed and otherwise abused by 3 (and perhaps now 4) IP addresses. There have been 3 non-anonymous users (including myself) that have tried to revert, discuss and explain what is required. We have POV'd the article, and it doesn't seem to be making any difference. Details in the discussion page and on the Vandalism in Progress page. Wikibofh 21:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ward Churchill & Ward LeRoy Churchill

Both pages are under various attacks from various sockpuppetts, recomond that a ban of several hours if not days be implemented untill sockpuppetry is down and a dialog can be furthred between responcible editors in resolving the POV dispute. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 03:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

John Kerry

This page was reverted by an admin to remove a direct quote with a summary and then protected - this seems unreasonable to me. Can someone unprotect the page. Symes

Context: An anonymous user reverted the article to his preferred version 13 times, against the vocal opposition of several other users, and declared an intent to dodge 3RR blocks. I, previously uninvolved, exercised my option to protect the version preferred by those more closely complying with the 3RR, as allowed by the protection policy. —Charles P.  04:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Am I to understand that a group of people can force a specific POV just because the organize and obey a rule? We should look at the edit - a full quote from someone versus a summary of it - both of similar length (paragraph changes from 2 to 3 lines on my screen with the full quote) - it seem so self evident that the facts are more clearly presented in a direct quote than a summary. How does this system work for disputations like this?? Symes 04:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is obviously a dispute here. You can help resolve this by spending the time talking to other people on the talk page. If there are 11 reverts in short order then it seems clear that there is some sort of dispute that should be resolved. BrokenSegue 22:01, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Symes (talk · contribs) is clearly the anon user who made the repeated edits in multiple 3RR violations. He is, frankly, not being honest about the nature of his edits, which ncluded as an introduction to the text: "Kerry admitted to having committed war crimes by saying:" Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're insistence that I am the anon user at John Kerry is False and demeaning - I have asked User:Jamesday to verify this to you - I've been told that he can somehow - However, I respectfully request that you retract and apologize this accusation.

Granted I have been coached through IM by someone whom more experienced on wikipedia than I am for some of my problems last night - but I can not believe how quickly I was attacked. Is this what wikipedia does to someone who is fairly new - just attack when the point of view is different - I spent hours reading about all your "high ideals" which I now see are just wasted because there has been no wikilove. (cc'ed to your user page) Symes 02:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. It seemed clear (and I'll wait to see some evidence to the contrary before I retract that) that you were the anon. He made a string of edits to an article from which this account has been absent; as soon as the page is protected, you appeared on the protection page to defend him. There's the evidence; what is the counter-evidence?
2. You forfeited any assumption of good faith when you misdescribed what had been going on (another indication that you are the anon, incidentally). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:49, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I still can't believe that you have yet again accused me of being the anon - PROVE IT - I am editing from a static IP through Brighthouse. In the mean time I am going to take Hawstom's advice -Symes 01:08-----------------------------4827543632391

Content-Disposition: form-data; name="wpTextbox1"

• ]

This page is for requesting that a page or image be protected or unprotected.

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. Before you do so, however, consult Misplaced Pages:Protection policy for details on the purpose of protecting pages and the guidelines concerning page protection.

After a page has been protected, it is listed on Misplaced Pages:Protected page with a short description of ten words or fewer indicating why it was protected. Further discussion should taked place on the Talk page of the article. This is not the place to discuss or dispute articles, users, or policies.

When submitting a request for page 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.

Current requests

Please place new requests at the top.

Narendra Modi

This page is repeatedly getting hit with reversions to a very biased version of the article. The reverts are always done by anonymous user(s). There seems to be no way to talk to this person(s) in the discussion page. --Rroser167 17:02, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

University of Santo Tomas

This page is suffering from a daily edit war between a registered and anonymous user that has taken place over many weeks. Encouraging editors of this article to use the talk page to sort out this dispute may be helpful. No Guru 18:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Old polls in Misplaced Pages namespace

Okay, I have a rather strange request... many pages in the Misplaced Pages namespace are obsolete, outdated or simply a straw poll that has closed a long time ago. It happens somewhat frequently that (particularly new) users see such a page, assume it's currently relevant, and for instance add their comments or votes - under the false understanding that they're making a useful contribution that will be noticed.

So would it be a suggestion to protect these pages? Any Misplaced Pages namespace page that is inactive and kept for reference or historical reasons (e.g. those tagged with Template:Historical) should arguably remain in its present state, and re-opening the discussion (if needed) should be done on a new page. Just like most bulletin boards have policies against 'thread necromancy' or 'bumping' a year-old thread to the forum top by responding to it.

Radiant_* 11:25, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

In a similar vein, what about articles that are entirely complete in themselves? I recommend locking We Didn't Start the Fire because the only edits it is getting right now are vandalism. If someone wants to tweak paragraphs or add comments, it is easier to lock the page from vandals and update the article based on talk page discussion, then to leave the article unlocked and open to some proper edits but mainly vandal edits. What we should have is a locking policy and template that describes the article as entirely complete and further edits should not be necessary, but discussed on the talk page first.--Will2k 14:35, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, do none of these pages have edit histories? Do timestamps in signatures not work? Just note the date that the poll or discussion closed and move everything said after that date to a more relevant place. I've seen requests like this before, and I still don't understand the desire to have certain pages remain just the way they are, now and forever. Obviously that's necessary for pages which have serious legal weight—things like Misplaced Pages:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License and the various disclaimer pages. Why is it necessary for old polls and discussions? This isn't a bulletin board, it's a wiki. Pages aren't supposed to be locked without some pressing need. Misplaced Pages:Protection policy#Uses

To Will2k: I suggest reading some of the articles listed in Misplaced Pages:Featured articles#Music before declaring that article "complete". —Charles P.  15:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall

We've got an endless revert war going on surrounding Camilla Parker-Bowles and whether she is "the Princess Charles." It's added, it's removed, it's added, it's removed, it's added, it's removed, and the nimrods over there even removed my attempt as a third-party at mediating a hold. I'm going to try to mediate the hold again, but am not optimistic. I think that the page needs at least temporary protection to encourage the disputing parties to come to a resolution. — WCityMike 16:00, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Um, so where do we find out if the request will be granted, and how quickly is it acted upon? — WCityMike 22:43, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

I'm protecting the page. -- AllyUnion (talk) 03:42, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. — WCityMike 12:11, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Reform Party of Minnesota

This was a name of what is now the Independence Party of Minnesota, but also of a splinter group that formed when the 2000 election was happening. It deserves its own article. User:Smith03 continually reverts edits to merge the pages, even after i requested he stop. PLEASE PROTECT EdwinHJ | Talk 20:20, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Edit-this-page-large.png

This page is a common target of vandalism (2 reverts needed already today) and I cannot see the advantage to keeping it unprotected. It would make life far easier if it were protected, and would not make things miserable for anyone (the page shouldn't be modified anyway). Smoddy (_tek) 20:05, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)