Archives

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

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.

The Poison Sky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

temporary full protection Dispute, An edit-war in which Matthew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is yet again reverting against talkpage consensus on a totally trivial issue; in addition, he is failing to assume good faith in his edit-summaries when deleting my comments from his talkpage.—TreasuryTag—t—c 18:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Khan (boxer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Repeated vandalism. Suggest protection against editing by anonymous editors.

Brandt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

indefinite full protection Dispute, Edit warring by an involved use to add possible BLP-violating information; major BLP implcations..Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected. PhilKnight (talk) 16:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brandt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Full-protect. A disambiguation page with a controversial issue. Content dispute / edit war between a number of people - Alison ^❤ 16:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected. PhilKnight (talk) 16:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

temporary semi-protection against blanking and redirecting and block content moves. Before today, China was an article about Chinese civilization, while People's Republic of China was about a political entity. I see a history of controversy around whether the PRC is synonymous with China and I don't see a resolution that would permit major content movesKevinCuddeback (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol Stool Scale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Semi-protection for a day or so, lots of vandalism today. WLU (talk) 15:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Declined However, if it returns tomorrow in the same scale as today, ask for three day semi-protection (since, as it looks like school IPs, they'll be out on Friday). Rudget (Help?) 15:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Castles (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

full protection Dispute, Plagiarism controversies are spilling over to autoconfirmed users..Sceptre ^(talk) 14:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protectedprotection changed to full, original expiry date kept.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in the world (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

temporary semi-protection Vandalism, This is vandalized all the time.Zginder 2008-05-06T13:00Z (UTC) 13:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Stifle (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ethnic Macedonians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Full Protection Edit war, warring about which image to use in the template. I have initiated a discussion on the talk page, and until a consensus is achieved the reverting needs to be stopped. BalkanFever 12:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Stifle (talk) 14:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doppler effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

semi-protection The page sees regular IP vandalism. I've been watching the article for quite some time now, and I doubt there is a temporary reason for the problems, so I would suggest a permanent protection. But I'm not sure if the amount of vandalism warrants such an action. Retoo (talk) 11:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Indefinite semi-protection is only used for pages which suffer long-term, incessant and severe vandalism from unregistered users (e.g. George W. Bush). Stifle (talk) 14:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Los_Angeles_class_submarine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is semi-protected. It is probably not needed. It is on my watchlist (As well as some others) and probably sees less random IP vandalism than Submarine which is not protected. I don't particularly care, but it would be nice to receive the occasional productive inut that comes from knowledgeable IP users. Protonk (talk) 03:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 05:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mazandarani language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article currently protected and has set to the long period, It is exactly sharp that the vandalizer user does not contribute to us, and keeps on vandalising the page, There are too long discussions done about it, See the talk pages of mine, user babakexorradmin and the discussion page of article, Previous protections were not full, And also were not on this current edition, All of the disputes are on this, and not the previous edition, This user used just references stating dialect without any knowladge of what wroted on them and those references were entered by myself, Please revert it or unprotect it or semi-protect it or finally block this user who was blocked from editing before, Thank you. --Parthava (talk) 11:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not unprotected Please gain consensus on the talk page and then the page will be unprotected. Your {{editprotected}} request was already considered and rejected. Stifle (talk) 14:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Template:Film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Requested edit to add template code support for Japanese cinema task force. See talk page for exact diff requested. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done by CapitalR (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). CIreland (talk) 03:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rosalind Picard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

full protection Edit war, Established users warring over inclusion of possibly BLP violating text. Really needs to be discussed on talk page. Previously the same article was referred to on ANI and the problem continues. (Also, there is a 3RR report linked to this war on that noticeboard.) Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected Jmlk17 07:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crack cocaine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

indefinite semi-protection Vandalism, This page often gets unregistered users making edits, usually about how much they love crack, or how someone they know uses crack, and other frivolous & nonencyclopaedic content. Could the page be protected from unregistered users?.rakkar (talk) 13:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 05:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gonzo_fan. What can be done about making the semi-protect permanent? This page is fairly ripe for vandalism, one-off editors are more likely to vandalise this article and never come back.--rakkar (talk) 06:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome. I would say wait until the one month protection is over, and if vandalism persists, you can request again here or ask me personally. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 06:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was the justification I was looking for;

Subject to heavy and persistent vandalism.

From the Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Semi-protection page.--rakkar (talk) 06:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, by looking at the protection log, this page has only been protected twice before me, once for 1 day, and another time for 2 weeks. Protection usually goes in escalation, unless it is full-blown, persistent vandalism. Thus 1 month is perfectly justifiable. Now when one looks at a page and sees that it has only been protected twice, that says that the vandalism is not that "heavy and persistent" to warrant indefinite protection at this time. Now I really don't get your comment, but I can assure you I have read our protection policy more times than is good for a person, and I know when a page needs indefinite protection. Right now I feel it is borderline, and my goal was a long-term protection that has a definite ending, allowing time for it to cool down, and I even stated that if the vandalism comes back right at the end of the protection, I would be glad to indef it. I hope this addresses your concerns. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 06:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I didn't realise it had to be an escalating thing.--rakkar (talk) 07:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RomexSoft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

full protection. High level of IP vandalism. Fuegoazul (talk) 12:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Declined This page is already protected against recreation because it is an article about a nonnotable company that the author has repeatedly reposted. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rochdale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

temporary full protection Dispute, Page has seen 62 edits today and many more yesterday. The editor who kept adding spam etc. to the article has now been blocked and the page needs protection as he threatened to come back..^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 06:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Edit warring limited to a small number of editors, or to a single tendentious editor, is best handled by blocks rather than protection. Repetition can be handled by escalating blocks. See WP:PROTECT for the full policy. CIreland (talk) 06:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Crowley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

temporary full protection Dispute, The section detailing her plagiarism incident is continually being IP reverted to remove details on the sources of the allegations Mkblackstone (talk) 03:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Jmlk17 05:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles Lakers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

semi-protection In the past week there has been a high level of IP vandalism.Erik93 (talk) 03:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 5 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Jmlk17 05:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Idag (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

semi-protection Troll edit war Two anon IPs are edit warring on my talk page [1][2] (I have attempted to ignore them pursuant to WP:Trolls). Idag (talk) 03:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 6 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Jmlk17 05:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chantal Claret (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

temporary full protection Dispute, Article is under attack from several IPs and recently a new, single-purpose account mirroring the edits of the IPs..Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 03:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Jmlk17 05:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rusty Goffe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

temporary semi-protection. I removed BLP-violating, and probably incorrect, information from these two articles, and several IPs and a new user are adding it again, with edit summaries claiming they are reverting vandalism. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 16:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I think it's possible to assume some of the IP addresses may have been the same person from a dynamic range. However, I have reviewed the sources they put in, and taken out the ones that were wrong, and left the ones that support the claims made. There have since been no more edits by the IPs to change this, so I do not see this as a good enough reason to protect the page. Hamletpride (talk) 21:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources need to be checked: many of them do not mention what is claimed in the article, and are invalid; also some of the sources are unreliable, which is a violation of policy for information about living people. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 01:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Jmlk17 05:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St. Nicholas-at-Wade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

temporary semi-protection. I removed BLP-violating, and probably incorrect, information from these two articles, and several IPs and a new user are adding it again, with edit summaries claiming they are reverting vandalism. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 16:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, for the same reasons given in the parallel case above. Hamletpride (talk) 22:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The information contradicts sources, and as it is about a living person, may violate BLP policy. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 01:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Jmlk17 06:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doritos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

semi-protect. High level of vandalism. Please protect it. thanks. 63.163.14.26 (talk) 02:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 05:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

APOEL FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. This has been going on and off for months now. Unfortunately it seems to come from several individuals. Anarxia (talk) 01:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 05:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British Isles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

full protection I fear another edit war has broken out on that article. GoodDay (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who was warring has reached his 3rr limit so I feel it has ended. Locking it would prevent progressive changes to the article.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 00:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need for protection, it was just a skirmish that will be settled in a couple of days. It's over now we can all relax. 78.19.216.31 (talk) 00:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected. by User:Rockpocket. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 05:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Wreckless Intent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protect for a while. Various IP editors change the track listing at least a few times a week. It's a new group that does it each time. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 05:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Telephone & Telegraph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Long term semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism, an edit war that has been going on for a few weeks now, especially in recent days. IP user keeps editing page to make it sound like AT&T Corporation still exists freely to this day, as if it is actually the same as the current AT&T Inc., formerly named SBC Communications, Inc. IP user also rejects this sourced fact (on the AT&T page in the corporate infobox, source #1), simply because he feels that AT&T Corporation is the same company. Documentation of this user's past attempts to disturb AT&T last summer can be found at [[3]], as well as the hostile attitude used by this IP user. Possibly a school student, as vandalism of this magnitude from this user has been pretty dormant for most of the year until recently. KansasCity (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Also, this is a content dispute, we do not semi-protect an article just to keep IPs from editing the page in a dispute. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 05:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bell System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Long term semi-protect. See American Telephone & Telegraph for reasons. KansasCity (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Also, this is a content dispute, we do not semi-protect an article just to keep IPs from editing the page in a dispute. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 05:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ayn Rand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article is semi-protected, but this is not needed. If there were an edit war, then full protection would be required, but this has already been rejected. If there were significant IP vandalism, then maybe semi-protection might make sense, but there isn't. Worse, there are a couple of editors who don't sign into accounts, and they're being unfairly blocked. This semi-protection is pointless and unfair. 03:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Please examine the edit history and the talk page before unprotecting this article. At the moment a number of anonymous IPs have engaged in edit warring every time the article was unprotected. When editors have attempted to engage them in dialogue, they have been rewarded with insults. Idag (talk) 04:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Article was very recently protected, no need to unprotect at this time. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 05:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Cab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

unprotection While The Cab are certainly far from a 'big name' band, they are gaining quite a bit of publicity as of late. They released their first full-length on April 29, having recently toured with Cobra Starship on the Really Really Ridiculously Good Looking Tour and with We The Kings on the Long Hair, Don't Care tour. I have, personally, seen them perform three times, meeting them once - I'd be happy to write the article. Dlanza (talk) 02:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Please create a draft of the article on a user subpage, such as User:Dlanza/The Cab, and let me know and I will decide whether to unprotect the article. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 05:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karina Pasian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

unprotection While this article is classified as being about a 'non-notable' person, the WP-BIO guidelines note that a person who has "received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them" is considered notable (among other reasons listed there). She has performed on Star Search, and at the White House for Black Music Month - both of which I believe qualify as notable honors. A simple Google search will turn up several results from third parties, including a Myspace page with over 1,000,000 views. This artist is currently signed to a major record label (Def Jam). She also has several red links throughout Wiki, and is mentioned in multiple articles (just search her name). I have valid sources on hand, and would be happy to write the article. Thanks for looking in --Chopin-Ate-Liszt! (talk) 02:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. However, once you have an article draft ready to go in your mainspace contact me and I'll do the honors. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 05:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Homo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

unprotection This is talk for saying something gay buy the speaker isn't gay. I want to make the article. It originated in the NY.Needs to be unprotected! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slyyfoxx0076 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Declined No need to unprotect. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 05:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]