Misplaced Pages

Black Mafia Family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Temporary full protection vandalism. Abce2|This isnot a test 00:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Declined Mostly just a content dispute. I'll mediate. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 00:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Temporary semi-protection High level of vandalism over health care bill.

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. tedder (talk) 23:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Indefinite semi-protection vandalism. Pretty consistent 6-7 vandalism attempts per month. Some racially motivated. It's a nuisance to the regular editors who are working on the article. I'd like to take this to FA review sometime soon, and semi-protection would help stability concerns. Similar in nature to Jackie Robinson which has been semi-protected for a year, aiding that FAC process. BillTunell (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 23:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

How recent, if you don't mind me asking? It just got hit two days ago. BillTunell (talk) 23:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Bill, I'm not MoP, nor do I play MoP on TV, but WP:ROUGH should give you a guide. Generally I figure 6-7 vandalism attempts per day in the most basic case. tedder (talk) 23:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Bill, it's pretty much as Tedder puts it. Anything under 5 vandalism edits per day is low-risk (in this article's case, the most vandalism at one time came from one IP address; stuff like that is easily blocked). Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 00:08, 14 October 2009 (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.

Number Ones (Janet Jackson album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Originally locked due to lack of information. Today the track listing and release dates were confirmed, followed by multiple reliable third-party news articles. This album is being released by a notable artist and meets WP:NALBUM and WP:HAMMER. I see no reason why this article should be locked while literally every other album to be released this year has its own article. Thankyoubaby (talk) 06:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

2009 in heavy metal music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2009 in heavy metal music and 2010 in heavy metal music: Pages locked for no real reason. Page locking should not be used simply to lock pages where someone you don’t like is making good edits; if you look, you’ll see all the edits there are constructive, and that I (as an IP) contribute massively to the article. Page protection is to stabilise pages being warred over, or prevent persistent vandalism, not because someone is making constructive edits. There is no warring in either page, nor any vandalism, just good, helpful edits. Judge the edits, not the editor.

It’s one of a string of examples of this admin abusing his position. I didn’t bother reporting the others since I knew nothing would be done about them. Maybe this one, being about as obviously out of line as you can get, will actually be noticed. 86.166.241.3 (talk) 22:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Not unprotected Please don't rant here about the reason for protection- it was done because one or more users, acting through sockpuppets, have way too much time on their hands. tedder (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

So hang on: your reason for denying the request is "You've come to the requests for unprotection section and requested unprotection: how dare you!"? That's no reason.

The page has been locked when only constructive edits took place, a clear abusive of the page protection function. Can you point me to some recent vandalism or edit warring on there?

I'd like to draw your attention to the guidelines given for semi-protection:

• "All or almost all of the vandalism is coming from unregistered users. " - Not the case
• "Unregistered editors should be making very few contributions to the article compared to the amount of vandalism coming from unregistered editors. The negative effects of semi-protection on discouraging positive contributions should be more of a concern than the positive effect of decreasing vandalism." - In this case, positive unregistered contributions are significant, as visible in the history. Also read that second sentence carefully please. Now, read what I've said, and tell me the protection is anything but a mistake. 86.166.241.3 (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Not unprotected The page was protected because anons, specifically you abusing your dynamic IP, were adding non-notable cruft to the page. J.delanoy_adds 17:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Cherokee Misplaced Pages Main Page

Sorry to request here on English Misplaced Pages, but I'm not sure where to request (because the correct project is fairly quiet at the moment). I have been cleaning off the dust of Cherokee Misplaced Pages for the last few days. Editing details here, and fixing things there. In the process of house cleaning, I noticed a lot of quality orphaned articles. I realized that's because the main page hasn't been updated since 2005 (!!!) I was going to revamp the page and add links, icons and all that, but the page is protected. Can it be temporary unprotected so I can go about my cleaning spree? Thanks kindly, Nesnad (talk) 17:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably the place to ask would be m:Stewards_noticeboard. It is unlikely that most people watching this page would have the ability to edit that page. J.delanoy_adds 17:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll check over there! Nesnad (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Declined Declining so the bot can sweep this request out; like J.delanoy said, most of us are lowly moppers on the enwiki = tedder (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2009 (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.

User talk:Cunard (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please help me archive my talk page. Move User talk:Cunard to User talk:Cunard/Archive 4. Then add indefinite semi-protection and indefinite full move protection to User talk:Cunard/Archive 4. Restore indefinite full move protection to User talk:Cunard. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Done I think I did it correctly. Let me know (on my talk page) if I didn't. In the future, an archivebot would be able to do 99% of this, since it simply removes and copies dated posts, rather than moving the entire page in batches. tedder (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The Owl City article is quite complete, and I wished to add a redirect from the common lowercase to the main article, but the page is create-protected as nn/spam which is certainly no longer the case.--Pennstatephil (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Done Unprotected and created redirect. tedder (talk) 16:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Fulfilled/denied requests

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

Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Always a target for vandals, but it has got particularly bad recently. Smartse (talk) 22:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 23:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Temporary semi-protection. Persistent high level of IP vandalism today. Scpmarlins (talk) 22:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. tedder (talk) 22:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Temporary semi-protection vandalism. Gordonrox24 |  21:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. tedder (talk) 22:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk:George Washington (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary full semi protection vandalism, Persistent vandalism on this talk page…. Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 21:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC) I made a mistake in this, it's for Semi only. --Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 21:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Additionally, articles and talk pages are not to be protected at the same time. tedder (talk) 22:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Large number of vandalism edits from multiple IPs in short period of time. Likely same person IP bouncing, attempting to get an edit through. See the page history. Nezzadar (speak) 21:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Looks like the main IP was blocked. This should help too. tedder (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Temporary semi-protection vandalism, There has been way to much vandalism lately.. South Bay (talk) 21:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. It's already semi-protected, and there hasn't been any vandalism lately. tedder (talk) 22:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Pikiwyn 19:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking it might be a good idea to keep the protection until after October 31st for obvious reasons. After Halloween, no one will care enough to vandalize. Nezzadar (speak) 21:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Misplaced Pages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, constant IP vandalism, and article subject is vandal bait. UltraMagnus 20:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.. Article doesn't look too frequently edited to me. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 20:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

East Coast-West Coast hip hop rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protect or full-protect. Vandalism and large bodies of text continually added and removed. Also edit wars going on. Rgambord (talk) 20:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Article hasn't even been edited in 4 days. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 20:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Indefinite semi-protection vandalism. UltraMagnus 20:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Doesn't need semi-prot; I only see 3 or 4 vandalistic edits within the past two weeks. JamieS93 20:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

South Park Mexican (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, This article gets semi-protected for a few weeks, then unprotected, vandalized, reverted, protected, unprotected, vandalized, reverted, and ad infinitum. Requesting indefinite semi-protection; don't really care to know about everyone's "he didn't do it" theories. —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!) / _{What I Say} 19:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Stifle (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Young Earth creationism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Drive-by IPs all day. King Öomie 19:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of a week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Stifle (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Pikiwyn 19:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Communist Party of India (Maoist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protect. Constant edit warring over the past few days that shows no signs of abating. Attempts at discussion for consensus/compromise are also not yielding results. Same users are edit warring over same content on Salwa Judum and Naxalite. Users all have recently created accounts.--RDavi404 (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. —Ed (talk • contribs) 19:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)