Misplaced Pages

:Requests for page protection: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:04, 21 June 2005 view source69.177.94.86 (talk) →Current requests← Previous edit Revision as of 20:12, 21 June 2005 view source 69.177.94.86 (talk) →[]Next edit →
Line 20: Line 20:


===]=== ===]===
editor Redux dismisses reference to canon events as fan speculation and inference, and tries to invoke revert wars; request made at 4pm on June 21 editor Redux dismisses reference to canon events as fan speculation and inference, defends his actions with circular reasoning, and tries to invoke revert wars; request made at 4pm on June 21


===]=== ===]===

Revision as of 20:12, 21 June 2005

Shortcut
  • ]

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) at the top of the current requests section 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.

Only consider protection as an option that is necessary in order to resolve your problem and that the only solution that will assist in the solution of the problem is protection. Sometimes the problem will go away after a week or so.

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 take 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Please remove requests once they have been fulfilled or withdrawn.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.

Replicator (Star Trek)

editor Redux dismisses reference to canon events as fan speculation and inference, defends his actions with circular reasoning, and tries to invoke revert wars; request made at 4pm on June 21

American Idiot

Despite the better quality picture shown here, Mike Garcia is out again to replace anything "not his" with "his." This was his comment:

Mike Garcia: reverting somebody who removed my own image of the album
Mike Garcia: infobox - restoring my own image, get your own image, Pmam21

Despite the fact that his image is of a lower quality, he keeps putting it in the American Idiot article. I have tried to resolve this on the talk page, he never replied. Plus, he is doing similar activities elsewhere. I think American Idiot should be protected for this image replacing war, and/or something should be done to Mike Garcia. Please compare the first image and the second image. Second one is obviously of better quality. -- pmam21articles 17:33, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)


Skanderbeg

Despite adding the following new evidence, the article is being valdalised and these contributions are being deleted by someone with this IP: 24.90.102.133:

1. external sources:

2. These published books:

History of the Servian People 1848 Leipzig, Germany Count Leopold Ranke

Paul Rovinski Russian emmisary and historian quoted from: "Glas Crnogorca" 1899

L. Defenbah "Zeine Familie War Slavishen Ursprungs" Brlin, Germany 1895

Teodoro Spanduci 16th century Italian quoted by: P. Rovinski see: above source for Mr. Rovinski


3. These quotes by academics:

Count Leopold Ranke: "In Albania, a prince of Serb origin, George Kastriotovoitch Skenderbeg, fought the Turks with great valour as the prince of Albania".

Paul Rovinski: "...in the time of national awakening for the Albanians - Skenderbeg was as much of a Serb as he was an Albanian...in him there was much Serb blood. His mother Vojislava was a Serb princess and the names of most of Skenderbeg's sisters were Serb...Mara, Jela, Angelina, Valica and his brothers were: Stanisa, Konstantin. Skenderbeg's sister Mara was married to Stefan Crnojevic, lord of Zeta, who with the Zetans helped Skenderbeg for 24 years in the wars against the Turks. According to the Catholic priest of Shkodra Marin Barleci, the Turks unearhed Skenderbeg's remains and distributed them amongst themsleves 'as amulets".

L. Diefenbach: "Skenderbeg's family was of Serb descent" and married to Danica daughter of Vojvoda Golem. (golem is an old Slav word, meaning "great".)

Teodoro Spanduci: "Skenderbeg, a personally brave man was of Serb descent and was so useful, that he was respected by the Albanians, as well. He was the son of Ivan Kastrioti. His mother was Vojislava, daughter of the Prince of Polog."

Fatos Lubonja: "I told of how the Albanians have forgotten that Skenderbeg was a Slav. I was attacked by Ismail Kadare." * 1.

Kaplan Resulli: "Lets mention, as well, at this opportune time only Georgi Kastriot ­ Skenderbeg, of an undeniable Slavic ancestry..."* 1.

The contributions to the article are being constantly deleted because of political motives. Please have this paged secured against politically-minded vandalism and a lack of sincerity to historical record.


Harvard University

RGluckman has consistently vandalized this page by removing the Harvard crest. Several other users have pleaded with him to stop but he continues and tosses out vague legal threats. --ElKevbo 00:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RGluckman has been blocked for 24 hours. Protection is not necessary at this time. If after 00:43 22 Jun 2005 RGluckman has continued his vandalism spree, then perhaps protection is in order; however given he is the only user who seems to be interested in removing this image, probably blocking him will be sufficient to protect the page. See Talk:Harvard University. Nohat 00:51, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

List of songs deemed inappropriate by Clear Channel following the September 11, 2001 attacks

This article is vandalised over and over again, every few minutes. And because the list is already complete, there's hardly ever any non-vandalism edits done on it (other than reverts). -- LGagnon 20:42, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Protected. silsor 05:57, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Roaring Twenties

Title protect. SPUI keeps making attempts to move this page against clear consensus. ℬastique▼ 03:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Abortion

This page is frozen because one person went on edit rampage without any consensus at all or attempt at consesnsus. It is now frozen with all of his/her edits in place - how convenient for him/her. The guilty party has apologized (look at the discussion page toward the bottom) for beginning the edit war - and it seems likely that the issue can be resolved. Please unlock so the page can be edited. 214.13.4.151 17:48, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected. silsor 18:20, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

El Salvador

Again, 172. J. Parker Stone 01:48, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • "Aggressive RVing" by Trey Stone. El_C 07:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • you haven't bothered to respond on Talk. J. Parker Stone 07:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Bothered responding to what? You made an edit on 01:09, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) — I last edited the article on 21:06, 18 Jun 2005. I will respond to it momeetarily, but I will say that I do not appreciate being insulted as a revert warrior, Mister Trey Stone. An Arbitrator has never blocked me indefintiely for being a "vandal and a troll." In fact, the only person to have blocked me has been me. El_C 08:11, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • i have addressed this blocking matter before -- it was based on edits that were partially justified given 172's personal attacks. please do not distort it as you just have done. J. Parker Stone 08:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • You have not addressed it to my satisfaction, and your personal attacks were not justified at the time, as they are not justified now with your mischaracterization of myself as rv warrior — whereas I believe our edit histories would easily reveal the reverse. I argue that it is you who are distorting matters, grossly. This goes beyond the scope of WP:RFPP, I have responded to your comment on the article's talk page, citing the UN Truth Commission on Salvadoran Death Squads. El_C 08:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • What "personal attacks" would you be referring to? J. Parker Stone 08:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
cussing is not the same as personal attacks. J. Parker Stone 20:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Joseph Stalin and History of the United States (1988-present)

Aggressive RVing by 172. J. Parker Stone 01:37, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky

Users unwilling to compromise. J. Parker Stone 00:57, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) Reiterate. This page is an absolute mess. J. Parker Stone 04:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Phuket Province

I have noticed some vague informations provided by a German user, User:Ahoerstemeier, about the information of my town-Phuket. As the one who is keen about Thai and Asian history, I would like to keep this page protected from re-edit, as it could be possible to be vandalized again. And I am also bored with this kind of stubborn thing, which costs me a lot of time. Please keep WiKi and this article be neutral until an expert or cited article can be provided...22:40, 18 June 2005 (UTC).

Template:GFDL-self

I have just brought this template up to what I believe is a Misplaced Pages standard, and consequently, I would like it to be placed under semi-permanent protection. Denelson83 22:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Is there a reason why it needs protecting? If there is no reason why, it should not be protected just to keep it constant. That is very un-wiki. What is it you want to protect against? smoddy 22:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cyprus dispute

This article has received a lot of cruft by Argyrosargyrou and his sockpuppets. Other articles where he has spewed his POV have already been protected, this article is in dire need of reversion to the non-Argyrosargyrou version and protection. Aecis 23:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Iglesia ni Cristo

Please protect version on 20:48, 15 Jun 2005 from vandalism attack. a johnny come lately is going around vote results and disturbing peace. --Emico 03:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Emico has been blocked for violating the three-revert rule. --Michael Snow 04:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sailor Moon

Has suffered from repeated vandalism, and should be placed under protection for 24 to 48 hours. Denelson83 21:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Monarchist League of Canada

User:gbambino, a member of the MLC, is POV pushing and insists on inserting assertion as fact.AndyL 15:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Odd, coming from a member of the Citizens for a Candian Republic who is pushing his POV without even sufficient arguments to back it up. I'm sure administrators considering a block on this page would like to read through the related discussion at: Talk:Monarchist League of Canada (gbambino)

Actually, I'm not a member of CCR. Are you a member of the MLC? AndyL 18:21, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Does it matter? Alas, you seem to think you know already. gbambino

You brought up the topic of affiliation (on another page), I didn't. And then you misidentified my affiliation based on rumour and conjecture. If you don't think affiliation is material, why did you bring it up? (hyocritically, may I add). AndyL 20:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Iglesia ni Cristo

I would like to request a lock on this page due to the immense amount of reverts going on from members of this organization, who want this article to be written in a way favorable to their religion and have expressed a lack of regard for the Misplaced Pages rules regarding religion and the NPOV. While other users have tried to intervene, Emico and gcessor, both Iglesia ni Cristo members, consistently revert the page and make unreasonable demands regarding its editing. If not a lock, then I beg for the sysops to please give their input as to stop the complete fiasco which is occurring here.--Onlytofind 09:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unprotect Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice

Gone from being a revert war, to being a slo-mo revert war between admins. Current version as editted by the protecting admin, creating a clear conflict of interest. Contents are highly problematic, from a policy point of view. Needs a better resolution than this. Alai 05:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Elizabeth II of Canada

User:AndyL instigated a consideration for deletion, and then proceeded to heavily edit the article, removing large chunks of text, and thereby influencing the opinions of 'voters' who were making judgements on the validity of the page. It has been reverted to it's original format, but should be protected from major editing until discussion about its relevence is complete. (June 14, 2005)

I think you should wait for evidence of an edit war before asking for protection.AndyL 22:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You've already dragged me into too many edit wars, Mr. Lehrer -- I'm not going to go down that route with you again. I believe you should respect the policies of Misplaced Pages and wait for the 5 day lag time to expire before deleting large sections of the article. Those policies, by the way, also state that the person who instigates the consideration for deletion should not be the one to delete the article -- as you have been doing, section by section, since the day you began the discussion. Thus, the article needs protection -- mostly from you. gbambino
You're misreading wikipedia policies and misunderstanding what we mean by "delete". Moving parts of the article to other article is not "deleting" the article and the fact that you have not reverted those insertions suggests you agree those paragraphs belong where they've been put in Monarchy in Canada and Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom.
BTW, It's also considered improper to call people by what you purport to be their "real" names unelss they use their real name as their userid.AndyL 15:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No misunderstanding, but no doubt that your moving of the passages influenced opinions on the article. Don't assume my approval, as there is none. My lack of revision was due to the fact that I was blocked for 24hrs after being careless in another revert war started by none other than you. My argument for protection until the 5 day lag time is up stands, though the end of that time is quickly approaching anyway. gbambino

"My lack of revision was due to the fact that I was blocked for 24hrs" And how much time has passed since that block expired?AndyL 00:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Britney Spears

Reversion war b/w User:Triggy and User:Vorash, request temporary protection to cool down Caphis 19:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gay village

Random neighborhoors are being added to the list constantly. References should be required.

Tsushima Straits

Rather than get into a revert war, I left this article unchanged and present here the talk record. I also added to the lengthy RfC on Mr Tan, which is why I think this is an appropriate posting - the talk record shows that he will not budge and wants to maintain Control despite good reasons and reasonable requests to let the matter lie pending another map. Note here that he removed the map I inserted there circa the beginning of the month - which I only caught last evening by accident. I want the article reverted to have the map, then protected pending further Rfc discussion, etc. Here are quick links My talk (Article 11) and His Talk (Article 85). Since reverting it myself would probably just escallate the situation, I left that for another third party, as somehow we in the Wiki-community have to get through to this hardcase. The matter itself is nearly trivial, but the failure of respect for anothers pov, is a matter of principle where the line needs drawn. I add for your attention, the suspicion by Admin user:JBell that this user was previously banned (On Tans talk and the rFC, IIRC) in part at least, for his intransingence and unwillingness to compromise. (this has cost a lot of others, and now myself (a lot of) time I could have been researching or writing.) Given a new computer, or a new firewall or router, etc. disguises this sort of double-life, the suspicion is credulous to me, and so I'm pushing back for the greater good. Fabartus 16:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Queen of Canada

There's no history of persistent vandalism on this page (The page has 6 edits in total.), it's not a featured article, there's no edit war being cooled off here, and there's no explanation for protection on the talk page (which was last edited in 2003). There appears to be no reason for this page to be protected. Uncle G 13:12, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

    • Looking at the posts on June 6 there seems to have been a rather sloppy attempt to move Monarchy in Canada to Queen of Canada via a cut and paste job. If you look at the talk pages of the people involved it seems this attempt was repeated despite a warning. AndyL 02:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Looking at the actual edit history of the article (6 edits) indicates that it wasn't repeated. There's 1 copy&paste and 1 reversion. There isn't even a mention on Talk:Monarchy in Canada of protecting the page, either. I still see no reason for this page to be protected. Uncle G 08:47, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

Canadian Alliance of Student Associations and Canadian Federation of Students

Be sure to read the 'talk page' of each as well,

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Canadian_Federation_of_Students http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Canadian_Alliance_of_Student_Associations

It is my concern that due to the political nature of the articles, the persons submitting them, some of the links posted, and current running disputes between both organizations, that both organizations are continueously trying to subvert eachother's submissions and lean the article in the direction of their own biases. Both organizations have affiliate member locals involved in legal disputes involving everything from tampering with society elections and the rightful ownership of the company Travel Cuts. I request that a wikipedia administrator dispose of all information that cannot be verified as factual and remove the capability of posting links to any other websites until they are verified as legitimately unbiased in the interests of keeping Misplaced Pages a reliable and trustworthy source of information on the internet.

Keeper451 AT hotmail DOT com

Caucasophobia


The user User:Mikkalai is trying to remove the following passage:

"In addition to individual bigotry, Caucasophobia is alleged to manifest itself as formalized prejudice and persecution, such as propiska laws (often likened to apartheid), and in extreme cases, official opposition to romantic and marital relationships between Slavs and ethnic Caucasians, particularly those involving Caucasian men and Slavic women. Compare with American miscegenation laws, which once forbade whites and blacks from marrying or producing children

In Russia the simular issue is present and institutionalized in the statements of Liberal Democratic Party of Russia and Russian “Movement against illegal immigration” (Russian language site). One may argue if those political movements are reflecting the opinion of majority of Russians or not, and if their political course is significant enough; but even if the followers of segregation are not the majority in contemporary Russia, the tendency is clearly present"

end of quote

Explanation: it seems an "anti-Russian propaganda"(pls. see discussion at the this article's entry on the Votes for Deletion page) and "falsehood and guesswork" to him. The author of the article has already presented a credible link for Russian language sources, political movements and parties who made a claim for sexual and matrimonial segregation between Russians and Caucasians their official policy. By destroying the links the user is destroying the credibly of the article as well

Propiska existes in Russia for over 70 years. Matrimonial separation pushed by right-wingers, not "official opposition".

Same user had re-edited the media links destroying the necessary separation between pro- and anti- Caucasian publications without an explanation.

The separation is phrased in POV and incorrect way. mikka (t) 00:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The paragraph : "Caucasophobia is a relatively new phenomenon and is believed by some to be the product of the FSB (Russian secret police) and President Putin's alleged efforts to use propaganda to justify Russian actions in Chechnya -- actions believed by many Caucasians to be genocidal."

end of quote

Is deleted by the same user with a following explanation: "false and guesswork: it is not new, and it is not KGB...er... FSB long arm"

Which leaves his motive for editing absolutely unclear.

User:Jumber 11:05, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My motive is very clear, state in edit's comment: all removed statements are either false or author's guesswork. There were other edit comments, for each removed paragraph. the proper place for discussion is at Talk:Caucasophobia, not here. mikka (t) 00:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Phone sex

There is a current edit war going on in the Phone sex topic. What is happening is that some persons have tried to advertise their personal phone sex pages and also take down historical information about phone sex operations in the 80s and early 90s which did not cater to the child and animal sex calls that the "taboo" services or persons are trying to promote on the phone sex page. They won't take it to the discussion to debate, they just keep editing with false information. I work in this business for 20 years and there are many of us who will NOT take calls from customers who want to talk about children and animals for ETHICAL reasons. They will not allow us to be represented on the page or report the facts that this wasn't even allowed 15-20 years ago in this business. They are sufficiently represented on the page, but do not allow OUR perspective to be represented nor are they reporting history accurately. The FCC did not control 900 lines until recently and have NEVER controlled toll free lines or call centers.

Maryam_Rajavi

There is a user here with IP: 69.233.169.62 who keeps vandanlizing the page Maryam_Rajavi. He has done it more than 7 times. Please note at the beggining he kept calling me and my friend Hanifjazayeri "terrorists", then he made a series of charges and asked for the answers. I answered them all on the Talk page. So now after I answered all his false statements, he is being rude and offensive, and has gone back to square one and is again calling me "terrorist" and he keeps vandalising the page. I spent a lot of time and energy in writing the biography for Misplaced Pages. This is not fair! Sometimes he signs in with an IP, but near the beggining he used a false name so I fear that he may do the same again. Can someone please check this out and protect the page? --RezaKia 09:50, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • He has broken the 3RR, and he has a warning on his talk page already from a previous occasion, so he has been blocked. I would note that if you revert again soon, you will also be blocked. smoddy 10:15, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The user with IP: 69.233.169.62 has broken the 3RR three times in total. I wrote an article and he keeps changing the facts and uses abusive language. Can someone please take a look. I would appreciate that. --RezaKia 14:26, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You have broken that rule more than him. It is way too obvious that you ARE a member of that terrorist organization, and you may find one stupid admin who would fall for your tricks, but fortunately, there are some real admins here also who first look into things before they take action. Now crawl back to your terrorist cell, mujahed.
1. Please don't call me stupid. 2. At the point of my action, there was only 3 reverts by the other user in the last 24 hours. There are now 4, so I am blocking him as well. Please see WP:AN3. smoddy 15:29, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

World Championship Wrestling

A series of anonymous editors are continually restoring grammatical errors and eliminating factual content without explanation. McPhail 19:11, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • This madness is continuing 2 days later. Same anonymous editor (64.12.117.5), who is doing the same thing on several other pages.Zpb52 06:00, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)