Misplaced Pages

:Requests for page protection - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gorgonzilla (talk | contribs) at 03:16, 26 September 2005 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 03:16, 26 September 2005 by Gorgonzilla (talk | contribs) (→[])(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) 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 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).

Administrators: When you have fullfilled or rejected a request, please note your actions (or reasons for not acting) and remove the request. Leaving a note on the talk page of the article and/or on the talk page of the user(s) requesting protection might be good, as well.

Current requests for protection

Please place new requests at the top.

User:Erwin_Walsh

I am not planning on editing it, and neither should anyone else. Cheers. Erwin

It's a wiki. We shouldn't be protecting pages without a good reason. --Tony Sidaway 18:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Mohegan Sun

The Mohegan Sun vandal (usually posting from the IP User:64.92.174.42) is back, vandalizing the page three times this morning, always with profane edit summaries. He also vandalized at least one of the reverters' talk pages. I think it's worth protecting the Mohegan Sun page again for at least 3-4 more days. | Keithlaw 13:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Looks like Fvw blocked the vandal. · Katefan0 17:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I have to concur with Keithlaw this page needs to be protected again because this has become an absolute nuisance, I just reverted an edit by User:66.250.69.101 who has been doing the same exact thing as the other vandals deleting selective areas of the article without proper explanation. I've gotten to the point where I want to say screw it and request the article to be permanently deleted because its just not worth the trouble anymore especially when I am trying to help provide information to an article just to have vandalized on a continuous basis. So please for now put Page Protection until something can be figured out to combat this problem.Misterrick 25 September 2005 (UTC).

King of the Hill (TV series)

This page has been getting a ton of vandalisms from a sinhgle sockpuppet (IP address starting 69.13. Please protect it for a few days until he goes away. Just please make sure the article is not the vandalized version before instituting the protection. Thanks.Gator1 01:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

HappyCamper protected it. Redux 04:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Suki

We would like to protect the disambiguation page Suki. An anon who uses many different IP address has been using it to promote his scam religion for 8 months now. An article RFC got an overwhelming consensus/proof that the religion was a hoax (see Talk:Suki for details). Since the anon uses a different IP each time they vandalize, we aren't sure of any way to stop this from happening besides to protect the page. This is a disambiguation page and there aren't likely to be any new definitions of Suki. Thanks! Cmouse 04:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Protected. Redux 22:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


Bogdanov Affair

I have protected this page to stop a rather hot edit war on the request of several different editors. There is almost certainly a 3RR violation somewhere in the last 24 hours, but I haven't had the time to verify that this is actually the case. Kelly Martin 21:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


Has been unprotected by User:Snowspinner. --Tony Sidaway 19:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Anneliese Michel

The page is currently undergoing an edit war in which a few people have disputed the results of an ongoing copyright dispute regarding the page. The page has been reverted several times in the past few days between the copyright violation page and an editor (without an account and using AOL) who heavily disputes this and insists on restoring the page without going through the temp page method or other established means. Request that the page be locked at least until the copyright dispute has been resolved.--Mitsukai 19:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Protected and noted older copyvio deletion on article's talk page. --cesarb 20:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Opie and Anthony and Sirius Satellite Radio

These pages have been consistently vandalized over a long period of time. Myself and others have been reverting these several times a day, but I know I'm getting burned out by it, I suspect others will get tired of it too. Could we possibly get some short protections to provide a break? Thanks. Wikibofh 17:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I've popped it onto my watchlist. No protection required yet. --Tony Sidaway 18:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Salem witch trials

Several IPs repeatedly adding nonsense like jesus to the list of witches. Has been happening regularly for over a week. Requesting a week or two locked to encourage vandals to move along.Vicarious 16:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Great Moravia

Anonymous person is trying to push new historical theory there w/o giving sources. The person (under several IPs) engaged in very fast revert wars today. he has no other activity on Misplaced Pages. A short protection should cool the hot head. Pavel Vozenilek 17:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

His last name is User:Knieza and I am adding a request for his (longer) protection given his last vandalism in the articles Nitra (where he added the text of a song!) and Slovakia all of which are of the same type as in the Great Moravia article...I am not sure whether a SHORT protection will be enough...Juro 01:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not protecting this yet. Please assume good faith, and make efforts to resolve your differences on the talk page before asking for page protection. --Tony Sidaway 18:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I second that. I looked into it soon after the request was made, and I didn't feel that this warranted protection, not at this point at least. My internet connection crashed while I was still going through the History, so I couldn't make a note of my impressions. Anyway, Knieza is a newbie, and any mistakes (s)he might have made can be probably attributed to a natural lack of familiarity with the inner workings of Misplaced Pages. Most likely, this can be settled with a simple discussion. Regards, Redux 02:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
This is incredible, his edits at at a kindergarten level, I have wasted hours of time today for nothing (having more important things to do) and you are satisfied???!! Could you please block at least the Slovakia article for some time (but before he edits it again) - I really cannot correct such basic things all the time. Do your jobs, administrators... Not all articles can be about the US or Islam to deserve your attention...Juro 03:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
You misunderstood. What we meant is that this user's actions do not seem like vandalism, since this would require malice, the intention of harming the project. Although Knieza's edits are indeed of somewhat (or completely) poor quality, apparently he means well. You know, since you mentioned it, this could very well be indeed a kid editing. Protection is only warranted when there's a revert war raging, or ongoing vandalism, and attempts to resolve the situation have failed. In the case of the Slovakia article, there's no comments on the talk page regarding the problems in Knieza's contributions, nor has anyone contacted him on his talk page, so we really can't say that he'd be unwilling to sit down and talk about it. Also, it seems that 207.200.116.74 is Knieza, and that he edited the Slovakia article without logging in. Then again, that's a common mistake for newbies. Let's try talking to him first. If he ignores us, or shows unwillingness to discuss the issues rationally, then we can protect the articles he's insistently editing. I'll be leaving a message on his talk page momentarily. Regards, Redux 03:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Being that the parties accused of POV-pushing were unresponsive to my request to discuss the issues before continuing to edit the articles, both Slovakia and Great Moravia are now protected. Regards, Redux 22:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

1986 NBA Draft

Edit war. I am having an edit war with an anonymous User:203.134.48.170 on the 1986 NBA Draft article. I see some of his points, and have even added some of them to the article. But his methods I can't get passed. He keeps using VULGAR comments about me in the Edit summary. ("Don't post crap; No shit, Sherlock; stop being a fucking idiot; Stop being a fucking idiot; WikiDon seemed to have an eight-grade education, at best;" etc., etc..) I find this an offensive way to communicate with me. He didn't try to communicate with me in a civilized manner until he had gone to far, and was being blocked. Also check User talk:203.134.48.170 for his warnings, and Talk:1986 NBA Draft for my reply to his charges. WikiDon 08:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I blocked the anon for 24 hours for violating WP:DICK, and from looking at the edit history, it sure doesn't look like it'll be much of an edit war with him gone. --Phroziac 14:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Howard Stern

Constant vandalism, at least 100+ vandalism edits in the past 2 days, would suppose alomst 500 in the last 3 months. What gets me is the, as i see it, the refusal for any admin to see that this page is constantaly vandalised, and for the that "decide" to revert the vandalism to lock the page down. It not tlike their is a content dispute, this is pure and simple vandalism from numerous sources. But based on previous admin inaction, i serious doubt that anything will come about on this. --Boothy443 | comhrá 04:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Protected. Jayjg 05:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
The is still vandalism on the page, under "Cast and crew of the Howard Stern show" one entry reads Robin Hole it should read Robin Quivers. --Boothy443 | comhrá 05:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Fixed. Jayjg 05:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Michigan Stadium

Vandalism attacks for the past several days, might be best just to lock it up untill the end of the college fotball season in the united states, bieing that would be not till the end of the year, i doubt that the page will be proteced for more then a couple of days then opended back up for more vandalism. --Boothy443 | comhrá 04:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy

Constant vandalism by removal of entire paragraphs by POV pushers. These guys have failed to work with all to form a team for months. Please protect this page. Edit War Thanks Labgal 04:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Please note the endless edit war with no help from users like jpgordon, just rv's. This page had been protected about 5 times and it has never been resolved. This is the only way to build a team. Labgal 04:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

jpgordon Don't you DARE accuse me of being a sockpuppet! What is your proof???? I am a human and have every right to edit here. I suggest you get your act together.

And you POV editors refuse to work with others as a team. This is a public project. You have no right to control content as a mob. There have been many editors who support these paragraphs, and helped write them. You have NO RIGHT to delete this work!!!!!!!!

The Philips Phile

This was protected before, some sort of radio-fan edit war is again going on. No violations of three-revert yet, but it's just a matter of time. I couldn't care less about this article, but it is a pain in my patoose because it's constantly showing up in my watchlist with the same NPOV and largely irrelevent text. Please protect, and while you're at it, block the two fanboy/girls, Ullr and Payneos. Thank you. Wnissen 14:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

This just needs a little tact. The section they're warring over is unsourced. I've protected and commented out the unsourced section. If one of them comes up with a source for it, the playing field will be somewhat changed and it can be unprotected. --Tony Sidaway 18:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
If I hear one more person use "fanboy" as an excuse to destroy my credibility, I'll explode. I might be a fan, but I did my best to include the report fairly. All Ullr and Wnissen did was be deconstructive in nature, saying "Oh, well... it's not major, lets delete it all because he's a 'fanboy.'" I've cited now SIX sources and a seventh by HorsePunchKid. This isn't a fifty page article, it's two (2) paragraphs. I maintain the facts stand, the article stays at the last cleanup before protection, and everyone gives me a hug. Payneos 20:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
The system works! Thank you for the protection, Tony Sidaway. I could kiss you! Wnissen 14:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

North Korea

This page is being continually vandalized with incorrect information about Bush's "Axis of Evil". I have detailed the problem on the Talk:North Korea page, but the same revert keeps being made by different (sockpuppet?) accounts. Sukiari 00:45, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

It's been about a day without any action or response. The vandal has yet to make the revert again, and I would technically be breaking the 'three revert rule' if I fix the page again. Some kind of attention is needed. Sukiari 03:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

USC Trojans Football (from moves only)

User Brian Brockmeyer keeps moving this page to "Southern Cal Trojans football". This is a problem for the following reasons:

  • As noted by TheRubal in the section at the bottom of the page, the official USC media guide specifically asks media sources to not use the name "Southern Cal" in reference to the university.
  • The name of the article has been discussed on the talk page and a consensus has been reached at "USC Trojans Football", the user who keeps moving the page has not participated in the discussion.
  • The current name is both unambiguous (the other USC with a football team does not call it the Trojans) and correct (in that all other pages that abbreviate "University of Southern California" in their title do so as "USC", example: USC School of Cinema-Television).

So far as I can tell, the only purpose of continually moving the page to "Southern Cal Trojans Football" is to antagonize USC football fans who, like the university athletics department, dislike the use of "Southern Cal" in reference to the university. Please protect this page from being moved (the content is not under dispute). -- Tyler 23:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Done. Sasquatcht|c 23:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

International Academy

The page is vandalized almost daily. I believe it is done by students, and User:202.122.69.82 is changing the page very often. I am not affiliated with the International Academy, and I am growing tired of reverting changes. Protecting the page is the last resort before I request it to be deleted. -- ReyBrujo 17:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


St. John's College, U. S.

Zenohockey, who is a student of St. John's, continues to delete an important section I have added which delineates various critiques of the St. John's educational philosophy. Carnaptime 17:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Charver

This page was a redirect to Charva, an article that was deleted as per vfd. The resolution of the vfd was to merge the content into the Chav article, and this redirect was altered to point at Chav accordingly.

An anonymous editor is repeatedly pasting the old, pre-vfd resolution content from Charva into Charver, despite requests to not do so. -- 15:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


George W. Bush

Please protect due to constant vandalism, several times today already. Message me if you have any comments. --Chazz88 19:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

While it attracts a lot of vandalism, this article is also undergoing constant revision, and vandalism is quickly removed. Protection would stop the editing. --Tony Sidaway 19:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Current requests for unprotection

Please place new requests at the top.

Qur'an

I'm sure the vandals have left by now, it's been protected for a while. 64.251.182.80 03:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Ray Nagin

I am not entirely sure that a page referring to someone involved in a current event should be protected; after all, information about this mayor of New Orleans may be changing rapidly. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree. The Nagin article should bear a {{current]] tag as well as a {{NPOV]] or {{totallydisputed]] tag too. Nagin has recently attacked the head of Hurricane Katrina relief efforts, the Coast Guard's Admiral Allen, as "the Federal Mayor of New Orleans" when Allen disagreed with Nagin's plan to repopulate the city before Hurricane Rita. Fortunately, Nagin reversed himself. Had Nagin's plan been adopted hundreds more deaths would have resulted after the failure of the temporary levee during Hurricane Rita flooded the 9th Ward. These Nagin antics need to be added to the article. --JimmyCrackedCorn 01:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I unprotected this and added a {{current}} tag. I agree that protection is inappropriate. --Tony Sidaway 03:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
The article is neither out of date or disputed as POV with the exception of one individual who insists on editing it to insert his own personal theories. The same user has also taken to re-routing redirect pages to publicize his own POV theories. If the protect is not quickly replaced then we are going to see a return to 9 or more reverts each day from JimmyCrackedCorn and his sockpuppets. --Gorgonzilla 03:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

WP:VFD

I would like this changed to point to the new Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion process for deleting votes. It doesn't have to be unprotected, just edited by an admin. --SPUI (talk) 22:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm thoroughly confused... Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion is a redirect to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion, and I don't see any reference to a page for deleting votes. -- Tyler 22:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
See the history of Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion and it should all become less confusing. --cesarb 23:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I dissagree with this change, lots of links still point to VFD and they would confuse people in the future. And the page votes for deletion redirects to AFD anyways. Broken S 23:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Encyclopædia Dramatica

Article has now been protected coming up on two months, which is significantly disruptive to editing. Unprotection requested. Erwin


Done. --Tony Sidaway 19:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Template:HurricaneWarning

Was protected as a zealous measure to pre-empt supposedly likely vandalism, see here for the discussion. But now, no article currently references the template , it was never subject to vandalism, and I think continued protection of the current version is not justified. --Mysidia (talk) 21:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Done. When did Misplaced Pages become an informational arm of the US government? --Tony Sidaway 19:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Reasserting request: Illegitimate page protection on 9/11_domestic_complicity_conspiracy_theories

Page was blanked/redirected to the page that refers to it (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=9%2F11_domestic_complicity_conspiracy_theories&diff=23075049&oldid=23052353) and immediately thereafter (02:01, September 12, 2005) protected by same person. Said person is involved in a dispute with the page, and, furthermore, lied about the reason for protection: "anon is trying to move the page". Request immediate un-protection and sanction. Kevin Baas 23:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Note: already requested below (#Request to unprotect 9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories). --cesarb 00:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
False: The cited request is a separate request that had been filled a while ago, and the explanation above does not apply to that instance. The explanation above, where SlimVirgin is implicated as violating page protection rules on two counts, does not apply to the earlier request, which was fulfilled and is therefore no longer applicable.
Contrary to what cberlet Carbonite has suggested on that no-loner-applicable request, the content on the page has not been merged into a different article, and the discussion as to whether or not to merge, which has not come to a resolution before the content was blanked - did not even begin until after the content was blanked, is, as is proper, taking place on the talk page of the page that has been proposed to be merged (who's unblank version has the respective tag on it). Kevin Baas 13:38, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Please stop adding duplicate requests. If necessary, revise or expand on the old request. Carbonite | Talk 16:41, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Once again, the old request was not a duplicate request, as I have already made perfectly clear. It was, however, marked by a false/misleading comment which most likely caused administrators to ignore it / file it in their heads, falsely, as already dealt with. Thus, revising or expanding it would be useless. That is why, unfortunately, I had to reassert the request, instead of revising or expanding the request that has become neglected due to a false/misleading comment. Kevin Baas 17:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
In addition to this request, there are two other requests from you on this page to unprotect 9/11_domestic_complicity_conspiracy_theories:
  • The first request was posted 13:00 September 12, 2005. It claimed that the page was protected on a vandalized version. This was untrue and I responded as such. My corrections were never disputed.
    • I did not notice your comment. Consider this a dispute. We obviously differ in opinion on what we consider "vandalism" and what we consider acceptable[REDACTED] conduct. Kevin Baas 22:57, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The second request was posted 23:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC). It again requested that the 9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories article be unprotected. Cesarb correctly noted that this request had already been made and linked to the first request. Cesarb's comment was never disputed or responded to.
    • False. Correction: It again requested that the 9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories article be unprotected again. Small change in sentence structure, giant leap in concept. Just as one would file a request to have a page protected again after it's been unprotected again, one would file a request to have a page unprotected again after it's been protected again. You see a page may be protected, and then unprotected, more than one time, and therefore it's neccessarily to be able to post a protection/unprotection request, on each separate occasion. For example, the George W. Bush article has had a number of protection/unprotection requests, because it has been protected/unprotected a number of times. Kevin Baas 22:57, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Now you've posted a third request to unprotect the article. Please stop. If you disagree with what you consider to be a false or misleading comment, respond to it, don't just continue to post new requests. It makes a mess of the page and probably will make it less likely that admins will pay attention to the request. Carbonite | Talk 17:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
I thought I made my reason clear. Perhaps you didn't understand. The likelihood of admins paying attention to the request was exactly my point; was exactly why I had to post a reassertion: because it was unlikely that admins would have paid attention to that request after they had read the comment falsly stating that it was a duplicate. I certainly wouldn't. You can understand the issue of admins paying attention to a request or not, if you can apply this concept in a different way, then perhaps you will be able to understand what I am saying. Kevin Baas 22:57, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Protection has only been applied to the article once, (02:01, 12 September 2005 SlimVirgin protected 9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories (anon is trying to move the page)) protection log. A new request is only appropriate after a state change (unprotected->protected or vice-versa). Contrast this with the George W. Bush article , which has been protected and unprotected many times. Carbonite | Talk 12:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Absolutely false. Protection has been applied to the article multiple times, as one look through the page history will reveal. Kevin Baas 11:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I provided a link to the protection log above and right here. Please provide similar evidence to back up your claims. Carbonite | Talk 12:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
the page history for 9/11 domestic conspiracy theories, like i said. i imagine it's in the log to, but that's quite a hassle to sort through. Kevin Baas 03:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

(back to left margin) What I linked to was the entire protection log for the article. If the article was protected more than once, there would be multiple entries in the log. But there's not multiple entries. There's only one. Carbonite | Talk 19:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I see my name is mentioned in relation to this, but no one has approached me about it, and I have no memory of protecting it, or being involved in a dispute about it. Could someone explain what the issue is, so I can consider whether to unlock it? Many thanks, SlimVirgin 23:08, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, now I remember something: an IP address kept either moving 9/11 conspiracy theories to 9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories or else kept blanking the redirect. So I protected the latter so that it redirects to 9/11 conspiracy theories, which is the current title of the page. Kevin wants this protection to be lifted for what reason? And who has lied about protecting it and is involved in the content dispute? SlimVirgin 23:14, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
You have your story backwards: 9/11 conspiracy theories was not being altered in any way. The page 9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories kept being blanked and redirected to 9/11 conspiracy theories. If, as you suggest, 9/11 conspiracy theories was being moved to 9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories, then the proper course of action would have been to protect 9/11 conspiracy theories, not 9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories, and protected would, ofcourse, not prevent 9/11 conspiracy theories from being moved (which it was not being). Multiple people, as distinct from an "IP address", would restore the page content on 9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories (which is very different from that of 9/11 conspiracy theories), because there is an ongoing discussion on whether or not to merge the page into 9/11 conspiracy theory, and if every link to the page is redirected back out, there's no way get to the discussion page. (btw, the discussion page itself had been blanked and redirected as well, by some of the same people who continue to blank and redirect the article.) Your comment that the page 9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories - or as i now understand it 9/11 conspiracy theories - was being moved, is simply untrue. That is why I called it a "lie"; because it is untrue. One has simply to look at the page history to find this out. Looking at the page history of 9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories, one will also discover that you reverted that page immediately before protecting it, thereby endorsing a particular version, (specifically, the blanked and redirected one) which is strictly against[REDACTED] page protection policy. Kevin Baas 12:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
My version of reality is that the overwhelming sentiment of editors was that several pages be merged, and that a tiny handful of editors have refused to abide by that decision in a relentless campaign to force their will against the will of the majority. If page protection is lifted on any of these pages, they should be monitored for redirection or merger that violates the consensus, and the persons responsible be held accountable, or anonymous IP blocked for several weeks.--Cberlet 13:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
if you take a look at the discussion on the talk page of 9/11 domestic conspiracy theories, you'll see that it's split 50-50. no overwhelming majority by any means. if there's a discussion someplace else, well, obviously i'm not aware of it, nor are any of the others, as well they shouldn't be, because the discussion is therefore not where it's supposed to be. Kevin Baas 03:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
I wish I knew what you were talking about, Kevin. All I saw was that Raul654, Jayjg, Cberlet, and Carbonite seemed to want the page to be called 9/11 conspiracy theories, as it is now. Then an anon User: 69.121.133.154 reverted to the other title. So I reverted it back (because it looked like vandalism), and blanked and protected the page so he couldn't do it again. I take it now the anon was you. My advice to you is to stop revert-warring against the consensus.


And even if you think something is untrue, that doesn't mean the person who said it was lying. SlimVirgin 19:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The page is not called 9/11 conspiracy theories. That is a different page which different content which has coexisted with the redirected page for a long time. 9/11 domestic conspiracy theories is still called 9/11 domestic conspiracy theories, except the content of the page can only be seen in the page history, and that page history can only be accessed via browsing directly to the page via "search", and then clicking on the back to redirect link after being redirected, and then clicking on page history, and then clicking on the prior version. I am not aware of any "consensus", and the major contributors to the article in question, 9/11 domestic conspiracy theories (which was, again, not derived from 9/11 conspiracy theories), as far as I can tell, were not consulted in any way, nor was there a request for comment, nor was there a merge request (which would be kind of akward on a page that has been "moved", according to you? So was it moved or is it requested to be merged? I'm confused by what you wrote - it leaves it ambiguous.) As regards lying, there are two elements required: one, that it is not a "thought", but an objective truth, and two, a state of mind of culpability, much harder to prove, but usually proved by way of proving awareness of the act and awareness that it was wrong. As regards the anon, no, the anon was not me. I have no idea who the anon is. And for what it's worth, I am not RyanFresling either. My advice to you is to assume good faith, and to take a step back and re-examine the situation. Kevin Baas 03:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection Add topic