Cannabis Ruderalis

Content deleted Content added
BigGabriel555 (talk | contribs)
BigGabriel555 (talk | contribs)
Line 15: Line 15:
===={{Dominican Republic}}====
===={{Dominican Republic}}====
can you protect the dominican republic ive seen some vandalism i ficked it so you can protect it
can you protect the dominican republic ive seen some vandalism i ficked it so you can protect it
[[User: Biggabriel555]]



===={{lut|Cool-dude tim}}====
===={{lut|Cool-dude tim}}====

Revision as of 18:34, 20 September 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


    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.

    Template:Dominican Republic

    can you protect the dominican republic ive seen some vandalism i ficked it so you can protect it User: Biggabriel555

    User talk:Cool-dude tim (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    Full Protection An indefinitely banned user who was banned for his long history of vandalising articles and he keeps coming back and adding comments and I've found a few new IP socks of his. I think that the inability to edit his own talk page might finally give him the message and he'll leave for good. -- Scorpion0422 17:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MaxwellTeke (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Protection requested as registered and anonymous editors are removing the template noting this editor has been banned. --ElKevbo 17:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Request semi-protection. Banned user using IP edits on old page to harass users. R. Baley 16:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    semi-protection +expiry 1 week, Semi-protection: Vandalism, heightened.~Eliz81(C) 16:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mr.Z-man 16:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    semi-protect. Continual recent vandalism and almost nothing but vandalism, including libel, since 16 June. Sbowers3 15:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected by another admin. – Steel 15:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For one week. I'm the protecting admin. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 15:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Request semi-protection. IP edit warring (quite recent, but persistant): unsourced material added, removed, added, removed. Occasional trolling: "back by popular demand, the secrets section is back with more truthiness". — mholland (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protectedSteel 15:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    semi-protect. Possible vandalism due to current national action... Just a request for preventing further racist attacks. --Giggity Giggity GOO! 15:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. Been so since August 27. Mr.Z-man 15:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    semi-protect. Short term semi-protection needed. Some Aruban keeps deleting various sections from various anonymous IPs, without any discussion or justification. I'd like to see him register so we can figure out what his concerns are. Kww 14:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. – Steel 15:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    semi-protect. Was unprotected here and five minutes later was vandalized by anon-IPs. Please help. --BlindEagletalk~contribs 14:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    At least the anon that requested unprotection doesn't seem to share a range with the vandals thereof, nor did the history say he ever edited Llama after its unprot. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 14:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected Mr.Z-man 15:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:4.157.113.241 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    semi-protect. IP user keeps blanking warnings and blocking template. Please protect until block expires.--Just James T/C 10:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected until the block expires. Messily. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Puma AG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and PUMA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    semi-protect. Repeated vandalism over two days from anonymous user with numerous IP addresses, some of which are now blocked. Being unable to move Puma AG page to PUMA, as he/she wants, the user has continually blanked the Puma AG page/talk page and pasted contents into PUMA. Gr1st 13:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected both pages and Move protected Puma AG. Mr.Z-man 15:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    semi-protect. Festival is only a few days away, and the IP vandalism is already starting. Last year, this article was vandalised daily, so it may be better semi-protected until at least Oct 7. -Steve Sanbeg 18:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    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.

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

    Been locked since July 19 and the only debate on how to get it unlocked is opccurrinfg at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Che Guevara. I wasnt involved in the disputre that locked the article but do think it now needs unlocking to let editors edit in a normal way, SqueakBox 17:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Has been protected for nearly four months now after a very short edit war. Multiple people are queueing up on the talk page with constructive edits. – gpvos (talk) 12:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

    Unprotected, I'm tempted to say "due to sheer lameness of that edit war". Good luck and Godspeed :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Good Life (Kanye West song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    The page was protected after "WIKI-GUY-16" persisted to revert and change edits based on his own personal opinion. On the talk page, Spellcast cited the following, "Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs#Infobox Single says to put "the earliest known date" it was released." This basically closes the case and since the song has since charted at number 14 on the Billboard Hot 100 the track has officially been released along with it's video. It would be great if the page could be unprotected so editing can resume and be updated accordingly, thanks. --Ayoleftyz 17:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    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.

    User talk:Punk Boi 8 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    At User talk:Punk Boi 8#Block Appeal, there's a link to an archived WP:ANI discussion - the current location of the discussion is: [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive219#User:Punk Boi 8]]. I would like an admin to fix that - since it seems that the WP:ANI discussion is necessary to understand this section. Od Mishehu 15:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    At User talk:Hkelkar#No Personal Attacks, there's a link to an archived WP:ANI discussion - the current location of the discussion is: [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive155#Xenophobia]]. I would like an admin to fix that - since it seems that the WP:ANI discussion is necessary to understand this section. Od Mishehu 15:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fulfilled/denied requests

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

    Protected for several months for normal causes. 68.39.174.238 00:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The reason for protection was, and I quote, "Heavy IP vandalism." -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 01:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Unprotected by Phaedriel. Now I almost still wish my username was "Llama man". — Malcolm (talk) 01:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Unprotected Two months since last protection... cross fingers this time we won't have to lock it down again after two days. I'll add it to my watchlist and see. Phaedriel - 01:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    List of Rocket Power characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Confusing Manifestation 04:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --DarkFalls talk 06:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Raymond arritt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Semi protect Repeated vandal attacks. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined User is an admin so he could protect anytime he wants. --DarkFalls talk 06:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    semi-protect. Continued high level of IP vandalism --- editors cannot keep up: a paragraph was lost in the reverting shuffle. Thanks! hike395 03:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --DarkFalls talk 06:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Good Life (Kanye West song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Full protection Edit war. Also look in history, I think at least one guy went over the 3RR. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected Mr.Z-man 03:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    Semi-protection Attracting a heck of a lot of IP and new user vandalism lately, for some reason. RedSpruce 02:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 5 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Phaedriel - 02:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    University of Florida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Semi and full for move. Sick vandalism today. The Evil Spartan 01:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected As requested, for one month. Maxim(talk) 01:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Harry S. Truman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Unprotection Main page featured article which has not received more than usual edits. Please unprotect. 76.31.143.244 21:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: I'll talk to the protecting administrator. Acalamari 22:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unprotected before I noticed that you had tried to contact the protecting administrator first. Sorry to undo it unilaterally, but leaving the Main Page FA fully protected for over an hour is a bit extreme. Move protection remains, per norm. — TKD::Talk 22:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There were 247 edits to the article during the 24-hour period of the 19th, and 95% (guestimation) of them were vandalism related (either vandalism or reverts there of). And, the article was protected for a portion of that time. Now this policy of letting anyone edit Wikipedia is great, but when it gets to the point that good editors are spending too much time just policing vandalism, maybe this policy needs to be reviewed. How productive is it to spend time just reverting garbage? Think of how much better it would be to spend quality time just contributing quality edits. Now of course I want just anyone to edit, but if they can't login and establish a track record of quality editing on "junior" articles, well, why the heck not. And this not protecting featured articles, anybody want to explain that to me? Spending all this time just fixing vandals, rude people, spamvertizers, and other no-quality edits, etc, is just a NON-PRODUCTIVE waste of time. It is STUPID! Not all policies are written in concrete. Slavery used to be legal too. WikiDon 01:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Even equating protection of an article to slavery in the mildest form obliderates any pursuasiveness your arguement may have had. Maybe I don't want an account or maybe I have one but don't wish to log in when not using my personal computer. Regardless, those who choose to edit without an account should not be locked out of an article simply because it is "feature". That is stupid. 76.31.143.244 01:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Wikipedia:Help desk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    full protection +expiry 1 year, Full protection: Vandalism, For the page to be sheiled from vandalism..The source of the cosmos... 00:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. This is the help desk. Many of the users asking questions are anons. — Malcolm (talk) 00:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He's asking for Full protection, which would also lock out people like myself. Still, he looks like he's asking for a preemptive strike, which is disallowed per WP:BP. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 00:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry if I sounded WP:BITEy, had a crapload of homework tonight. Hasn't been a great day... — Malcolm (talk) 00:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nolle perspiration. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 00:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Declined, protection is not supposed to be preemptive. While your intention to help is good, and I sincerely commend you for it, this page is used by many anonymous and newly registered users to ask their first questions about Wikipedia; thus, even semi protection (not to mention full protection) would completely defeat its very purpose. Phaedriel - 00:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    But I meant from vandals... It's protection from vandals... Oh well!--The source of the cosmos... 00:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandals fall into the anonymous-user and registered-user categories, and you cannot protect an article from them without locking out at least one of the two. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 00:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Twinkle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    unprotection +expiry 1 year, Unprotection, To keep the page from being vandilized..The source of the cosmos... 00:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. (Btw, I'm assuming you meant "protection", as the page has in fact never been protected - am I right?) Phaedriel - 00:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay... Just trying to help.--The source of the cosmos... 00:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    As a side note, preemptive protection is generally not allowed. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 00:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Semi-protection. The 8th protection in a year ended yesterday and it's already vandalized 4 times since, by an IP, a 2 hours old account, and twice by a few minutes old account. This title will always attract vandals. PrimeHunter 00:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected Phaedriel - 00:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User talk:68.75.168.79 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    unprotection Unprotection, User is no longer blocked.The Evil Spartan 00:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected Phaedriel - 00:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Japanese space program (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    unprotection Unprotection, No reason this should be indef fully protected.The Evil Spartan 00:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: Protection was issued just 4 days ago. This should be discussed with the protecting admin before unprotecting. Phaedriel - 00:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    School Days (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Semiprotection - Flood of joke edits over the last day, settling down to a revert war. Doceirias 21:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Semi-protected for a week. After the week has passed, the page will no longer be semi-protected. Acalamari 21:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    The Howard Stern Show staff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Semiprotection - Extremely high level of IP and new-user vandalism: rapidly approaching 100 vandalism edits from more than 15 different IPs on Sept 19 alone. --Rrburke(talk) 20:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Phaedriel - 21:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    semi-protection. two-week sprot expired this morning, and now 3 separate IP vandals under 4 hours. Pro crast in a tor 20:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Declined It's too early to justify semi-protection at this stage. Please re-list if vandalism picks up. Thank you. Acalamari 21:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Leave a Reply