Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Explicit (talk | contribs) at 01:34, 5 February 2010 (→{{la|Platypus}}: Comment.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome—request protection of a page, file, or template here.

Shortcuts WP:RFPP WP:RFP WP:RPP 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. Skip to table of contents requests to raise protection lower protection requested edits (purge) Request protection of a page, or increasing the protection level Request protection Request unprotection of a page, or reducing the protection level Request unprotection Request a specific edit to a protected page Please request an edit directly on the protected page's talk page before posting here Request edit

Archives

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Current requests for protection

Place requests for new or upgrading of article protection, upload protection, or create 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.

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

Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Michael Kourlas 01:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. — ξ 01:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, Tons of vandalism by IPs. -NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits) 00:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. — ξ 01:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ayaan Hirsi Ali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Temporary full protection vandalism, editor boasting of being "a regular" has introduced a link to Islamophobia on the Ayaan Hirsi Ali article, thus implying that the subject of the BLP is Islamophobic. in order to avoid edit war, pls protect the page from such vandalism. Amsaim (talk) 00:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Declined – Reverts are being made only by you and the other user. This would merit blocks for both parties should either of you violate WP:3RR or continue in engaging in an edit war. Please take the issue to the article's talk page. — ξ 01:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Semi-protect. Constant vandalism target. Why, I really can't imagine. DVdm (talk) 23:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Seems heavier than usual over the last few days. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Semi-protect. Daily target of IP vandals. Ohconfucius 23:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Cirt (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Astronaut (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Already protected. by another admin. Cirt (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Please clarify (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

semi-protect The vast majority of edits to this essay come from anonymous editors from geographically disperse IP addresses. There were 19 reverts of vandalism since 2009-10-01 alone. See the essay's history for the record. DanielPenfield (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Cirt (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

30 Seconds to Mars discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

also Alternative Songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

semi-protect Target of ItHysteria (see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/ItHysteria/Archive). As soon as the accounts were blocked (all Italian editors), anonymous Italian IP addresses began restoring the changes. Wide range of IP addresses involved makes range-blocking difficult.Semi-protecting both articles seems appropriate.—Kww(talk) 21:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Cirt (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Mary (mother of Jesus) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protect Page is undergoing slow-moving but continual attack from IPs and the odd new account. HalfShadow 21:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 5 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. JamieS93 21:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Temporary semi-protection vandalism. Arickp (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Due to the lengthy log of attempted past protections. JamieS93 22:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Temporary semi-protection vandalism. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. — Kralizec! (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Tha Carter IV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Temporary semi-protection, IP mischief is escalating (there have been a lot of it throughout page history), with unsourced claims and alteration of facts. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. — ξ 21:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Guantanamo Bay detention camp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection. There has been relatively frequent vandalism that has remained up for extended periods of time recently. This is also the subject of a political dispute, should have been protected a long time ago. --Starbucks95905 (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Vandalism isn't that heavy, seems to be reverted relatively soon, and at least 2 recent IP edits were useful (although one was reverting another IP's vandalism). Will add to my watchlist to help out, FWIW. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Temporary semi-protection, Not a major problem but there is a moderate amount of disruptive edits/vandalism about that could use a long-protection (to say maybe more than 3 days) to lessen the relentless watch of the article. GunMetal Angel 20:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. GedUK  20:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Semi-protection. This page is vandalised frequently as it is a subject often studied for high school assignments. Vandalsim is on-going and not related to any specific event. Freikorp (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. GedUK  20:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary semi-protection, I am requesting temporary semi-protection because of continued disruptive posting by an anonymous IP editor who is evading blocks. A range block has been discussed, but was seen to be problematic with hundreds of legitimate contributors in the range. Scjessey (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This continues to be an urgent matter, with the anonymous editor shifting to yet another IP. Please enact semi-protection as soon as possible. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a week by 2over0 (talk · contribs) ~ mazca 19:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Current requests for unprotection

• WP:RFUP
• WP:RFPU

Before posting, first discuss with the protecting admin on 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.

Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/October 14, 2005 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Requesting unprotection This[REDACTED] space has never been vandalized, and I can't figure out why it was protected in the first place, or even who it was protected by (else I'd ask them). I came to it because it is hosting a non-free image (File:Trudeau podium2.JPG) on this Misplaced Pages space page, in violation of WP:NFCC #9. I can't remove it because the page is protected. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Unprotected We (i.e. Raul654 ) used to protect the TFA pages that were transcluded on the Main Page to prevent vandalism. No one ever bothered to go back and unprotect, as there was generally no need to. It's now handled differently (cascading protection), so the similar pages from last year (e.g. Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/October 14, 2009) or so are not protected once they're off the Main Page. Because of this, I see no harm in unprotecting this page from 2005. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you! Yeah, I did look at October pages from 2009 just to see if common practice was to protect them, but didn't know it was common practice back then. Thanks again, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

John Micheal McCarthy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I would like to have this page unprotected. There were references of publications as asked for (not many but there were atleast two) after having been deleted several times and before being put on protection. I followed all of the guidelines and I believe that my page is being discriminated against just because it is not in a nice wiki format: the picture is not in a table etc... but these are things other people can add to my page. There was no reason to have it protected. This person is real, these references are from real publications; therefore I would like it unprotected so that people can add the missing criteria. If the page doesn't exist how are people supposed to work together to make it better? That is the point of[REDACTED] is it not? Or must we wait until someone who has somehow all of the information on this person and who miraculously just wants and knows how to put it all on[REDACTED] perfectly? the first time? never to be deleted? Do it?
--Disgracious23 (talk) 12:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Not unprotected – Please create a sourced version of this article in a subpage or your userspace. When this is done, please make the request again, or ask any administrator to move the page for you. The version on your userpage (User:Disgracious23/John Micheal McCarthy presuming you know that's there) doesn't have any sources beyond facebook pages, and the most recent deleted version were links to myspace.

Provide some sources (on my talk page if you're having problems with formatting). The issue isn't around proving he exists, it's about demonstrating he's notable. Have a read of the notability guidelines for the sort of sources that we need. In a case like this, it'll be reviews of his work in reliable sources, or substantial interviews. Has he won any notable awards?

Just to clarify, the article wasn't deleted for formatting issues (I would hope that articles are never deleted for formatting), but because there's no indication that he's notable. Thanks. GedUK  12:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you UK. But as I said if it were left up people could add things to it such as references to his publications which I could only find for free on myspace and facebook. And that was where I was going with the "if you build it they would come" theory.
--Disgracious23 (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

There are certain required foundational steps for building such a page. I explained to you yesterday at User talk:Disgracious23#Creating articles on people what is needed here. Without meeting that threshold, an article on this individual cannot be hosted on Misplaced Pages. --Moonriddengirl 18:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok I understand sorry for the trouble. You guys are doing a great job.--Disgracious23 (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

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

It has been protected since July 29 and there seems to be no reason for it to still be protected and there seems to be no expiration date for protection. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 00:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Question: Have you tried contacting the protecting administrator, UtherSRG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)? — ξ 01:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Current requests for edits to a protected page

• WP:RFED

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 Misplaced Pages:Suggestions for COI compliance), the {{Edit COI}} template should be used.
• Requests to move move-protected pages should be made at Misplaced Pages: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.

Fulfilled/denied requests

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

Temporary semi-protection EL spam edit war currently in progress; multiple IPs re-adding a promotional external link against established editors; no response to warnings; request semi-protect for a short period to regain stability. --RexxS (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. AlexiusHoratius 18:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Temporary semi-protection vandalism, The IPs and sockpuppets are back again. Pinkadelica 17:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  17:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

PlayStation 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Vandalism from ips. ETLamborghini (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  17:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 17:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Taelus (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Iron Man 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Temporary semi-protection - vandalism and edit wars. Increasing hype as movie is out in May --Teancum (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Declined Taelus (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Should have been locked a while ago /=. 大輔 泉 (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Xymmax _{So let it be done} 17:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Temporary semi-protection vandalism, One IP has already been blocked temporarily for blanking content from this page. However, s/he has simply logged under a different but related IP number. Rather than blocking more public accounts, I suggest simply semi-protecting for a limited time to prevent anonymous editing. The blanker is either Dengelegi himself or an associate. The article is currently at AfD and will likely be deleted anyway. . Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. I really prefer not to protect articles at AfD. However, there may be BLP issues here as well, and I will take a closer look. Xymmax _{So let it be done} 17:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Indefinite create-protection, Repeatedly recreated spam article. RadioFan (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Creation protected Taelus (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Long-term semi-protection. Has been protected twice in succession because of an IP hopper, who has returned after the last protection lapsed. 66.57.4.150 (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- Flyguy649 15:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Southern United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 15:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

User(s) blocked: Other vandalism not from that IP is minor/infrequent. (talk · contribs). Taelus (talk) 15:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Semi-protection due to vandalism. The article's last semi-ptoection expired a few days ago, and it has been hit hard since then. The last ~60 or so edits have all been vandalism or reverts. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 14:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  16:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Long term vandalism from multiple IPs - adding spam, slang, OR etc. about this legal and popular recreational drug. Smartse (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. GedUK  16:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Indefinite semi-protection user talk of blocked user, Abusive comments, not block appeals. Favonian (talk) 15:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

User(s) re-blocked with talk page editing disallowed. Syrthiss (talk) 15:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Unprotection, at least I think it is semi protected. Issue has been revealed in the press, no longer any libel issues. Off2riorob (talk) 13:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: Please contact Chamal N (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) first. If you don't get a response, let me know and I'll unprotect, or bring back here. GedUK  13:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Temporary semi-protection, Overwhelmed with riches! Apparent class assignment led newbie, but well-meaning students to flood article with raw changes. Would like a day's respite to let the dust settle. Student7 (talk) 12:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. As you point out, most of the edits are well meaning, just with some formatting issues. There isn't enough vandalism to justify protection, and I'm loathe to protect it solely because of over-excited students who are generally editing properly. GedUK  12:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)