Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:23, 1 November 2005

• ]

This page is for requesting that a page or image be protected or unprotected, including page-move protection.

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.

Misplaced Pages:Protection policy

I'm requesting protection of this page because an administrator who is accused of violating the Protection Policy in a current Arbcom case (User:SlimVirgin) is now trying to alter the clauses of the policy itself that she's accused of violating. She's added her changes back several times over the past few days after I restored the original and myself plus another editor objected on the talk page. I've asked her many times on the talk page not to make the changes until the Arbcom is done, but she's been increasingly belligerent in her talk page responses. I'm asking for a neutral admin to protect this page and/or ask SlimVirgin not to change it until the Arbcom has ruled. Thanks - Rangerdude 02:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Nintendo GameCube

User:Xizer and User:GoldDragon have been reverting each other's edits way over the three edit rule and their discussion is going nowhere. They are argueing over the wording of a passage about the gamecube's success. The page needs to be protected until a group consensus can be found. -- User:Jedi6 October 30, 2005

The passage being referred to calls the console "kiddie," a common, yet untrue assumption. It is strictly POV and does not belong in the article. I removed this section to clean it up, but GoldDragon seems to be enjoying trolling it. Xizer 04:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Can't we just block the revert warriors for 24 hours? Phil Sandifer 05:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Star Wars

There has been a long edit war on this page between myself, User:Copperchair, and several other users. Recently, Copperchair has been removing large portions of text from the page against consensus, as well as modifying the page to fit his standards, rather than what the community wants. In light of User:TheCoffee protecting the other pages Copperchair disrupts, I am requesting that this page be protected until we can settle this on the article's discussion page. The Wookieepedian 06:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Let's see if the Arbcom issues a revert injunction first. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 21:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Golden Sun

I feel that somebody is making harmful changes to this article, and is now trying to get it merged with another article, which is an uneeded action and would only serve to make the page worse than it already is. It would also alter clarity and cause confusion.

Can't quite figure out what's going on here, but I'll figure it out and handle the situation. No need for protection at the moment. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 18:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I know exactly what's going on. That user (80.225.1.131) has repeatedly vandalised the page (apparently because he or she disagrees with the merge, although deleting large sections of the article won't accomplish anything), and now wishes to lock his or her vandalism into the page. The merge has been proposed to make the articles less confusing but obviously 80.225.1.131 cannot take a mature approach to his or her opinions.Some guy 19:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Toon Zone

User Cowmuf as well as unregistered IPs keep returning to this entry to vandalize it with political opinion, and lies concerning the entry. Vandalism has also included spammish links to DVD sales web pages and other spam. --Ufotofu 19:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Protected. Dmcdevit·t 03:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Chimera

DreamGuy persistently removes items from this page. He has, despite repeated requests, discussed only one of these on the talk page, and that explanation is out-of-date, or false. Rather than report this as vandalism, perhaps protection will get him to explain himself. Septentrionalis 23:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Protected. But please not that a content dispute is not vandalism. Read Misplaced Pages:Vandalism#What vandalism is not. Dmcdevit·t 03:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, the summary by Pmanderson above (calling himself Septentrionalis) is a blatant lie, but then that's typical in things like this. I already explained to him it wasn't vandalism and to read the policy, and he refused to listen. I already explained the changes on the talk page and he ignored them... If he wants it locked until he bothers to pay attention, that's fine by me if it means he can't blind revert it back to how he had it, errors and all, anymore. DreamGuy 10:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Macedonians (ethnic group)

Could someone please protect the Macedonians (ethnic group) page. There is a frightful four-way edit-war going on there, but no one is using the talk page! I think that all parties could benefit from not being able to revert, but only to talk. GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 16:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Protected, and I alerted Ed Poor, who's meditating this dispute. Dmcdevit·t 03:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Bhumihar

I request protecting the page Bhumihar as I find the page has been subject to persistent vandalism / pushing of POVs/ information without reference, and so on, I am requesting for protection of the page. I have placed a request on the talk page of the article that interested editors should discuss the contents there, for inclusion in the article. As an administrator, I am no protecting the page, as I have remained myself involved with this page as an editor. Thanks. --Bhadani 08:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Been quiet since then. I'd say come back in a few says if it starts up again, but leave it unprotected for now. Dmcdevit·t 03:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

That is fine. --Bhadani 07:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Bektashi

• I added a section named Humor & Legacy to the article. Another editor started deleting parts of my edit claiming they were offensive. I called for third party opinions, we received one opinion that supported my stance and the page remained unedited for about two weeks. Then, the same user divided the article to move the newly added section into new article, without providing any explanation for that. I tried to discuss openly in the talk page, but the user ignores my efforts to reach an aggrement, responds irrelevantly in only one sentence, offends me, and keeps reverting the article to the "censored" version. AldirmaGonul 03:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't look that serious right now, no protection. I would file a WP:RFM for that dispute though. Dmcdevit·t 03:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Bank of Scotland

• User:Mais_oui! keeps inserting a claim that the Bank of Scotland was a central bank for the Kingdom of Scotland. The claim was then removed with reference to the bank's own account of its history, which does not mention this. Other users have also argued against this claim, and cited other reliable sources against the central bank claim. Unfortunately, the user keeps adding the claim back, without providing any source to back his claim. It would be better to protect the page for the time being. This will stop the user adding in unreliable claims, without any source, and stop the ongoing edit war. Astrotrain 19:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Nothing since Oct. 26. Watchlisted but not protected. Dmcdevit·t 00:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Democratic peace theory

Month-old edit war; 1RR doesn't seem to be helping. Saw this on RCP. Alphax  16:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Protected. --Ryan Delaney 03:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Totse

Just look at the history, it's been massively vandalized the past couple of weeks. We need to end this madness, before the log of changes is bigger than the article itself..if this is not already the case. -- SoothingR 19:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Protected for a short period. --Tony Sidaway 00:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Current requests for unprotection

Please place new requests at the top.

Criticism of communism

This article was apparently reverted to the "correct version" and protected by User:Ryan Delaney, on his own initiative, without any requests, and in prejudgement of the outcome of an RfA. The result of the RfA is very much in doubt. I am not involved, and would like to continue editing the article, which had been progressing just fine. Please remove the protection. --Silverback 13:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The page has been deadlocked for so long that just about everyone by you and Ultramarine has given up in frustration, and just waiting for the results of Ultramarine's arbitration. The article is not "progressing just fine." I also don't know what to make of your claim to be "not involved." Before the page protection you were backing up Ultramarine by reverting back to his version. 172 | Talk 14:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

George W. Bush

It should be allowed on Misplaced Pages, that all opinions concerning George Bush can be expressed.

Unprotected. --cesarb 13:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Urdu

User Ragib, who was active in editting the Urdu language page has now reverted the page to his preferred version and then blocked it. May someone please unblock this page--JusticeLaw 20:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

While not endorsing your characterization above, I agree that the article should remain unprotected. I have done so. --Tony Sidaway 12:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)