Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 17: Line 17:
===={{la|Slavica Ecclestone}}====
===={{la|Slavica Ecclestone}}====
Requesting '''full protection'''. Several users (inclduding anons) have recently started revert-war without discussing these changes in the talk page. I suggest full protection until this issue could be discussed and compromise reached on the talk page. [[User:Tar-Elenion|Tar-Elenion]] 14:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Requesting '''full protection'''. Several users (inclduding anons) have recently started revert-war without discussing these changes in the talk page. I suggest full protection until this issue could be discussed and compromise reached on the talk page. [[User:Tar-Elenion|Tar-Elenion]] 14:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
:{{RFPP|d}} The major parties participating in the edit warring have been warned. I'm especially cautious of fulfilling your request due to the fact that you are one of the edit warriors. -- '''[[User:Tariqabjotu|<font color="black">tariq</font><font color="gray">abjotu</font>]]''' 16:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


===={{la|Kali}}====
===={{la|Kali}}====

Revision as of 16:18, 25 February 2007

"WP:RFP" and "WP:RPP" redirect here. You may also be looking for Wikipedia:Requests for permissions, Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, or Wikipedia:Random page patrol.
    Welcome—request protection of a page, file, or template here.
    Shortcuts

    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
    this header: view • edit


    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.

    Semi-protect' Article is vandalized on a daily basis by ipvandals. Resolute 16:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect lots of vandalism edits today alone. Nardman1 16:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. -- tariqabjotu 16:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting unprotection. The Balhae article has also been placed under full protection because of edit wars. However, the admin failed to correct POV in the article. The article is biased however other editors cannot correct the problem because of the protection. Again, the edit wars can be stopped with warnings or blocks. Good friend100 15:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting full protection. Several users (inclduding anons) have recently started revert-war without discussing these changes in the talk page. I suggest full protection until this issue could be discussed and compromise reached on the talk page. Tar-Elenion 14:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined The major parties participating in the edit warring have been warned. I'm especially cautious of fulfilling your request due to the fact that you are one of the edit warriors. -- tariqabjotu 16:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full Protection. There was a huge edit war on this page over a single picture. All editors had a discussion and decided to switch the picture in the header with another one from a different part of the page. Now, even after everyone is in agreement, the person who repeatedly deleted the photo keeps on doing it still. I would like to get full protection to protect the page until the editors can talk some since into this person. (Ghostexorcist 12:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

    Declined The parties edit warring have been warned about the three-revert war. -- tariqabjotu 16:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Donegal Celtic are a Catholic-based football club who've recently entered the (Northern) Irish Premier League, and their page is victim to repeated vandalism. CharlieT 12:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. -- zzuuzz(talk) 16:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Excessive vandalism by misguided nationalist. logologist|Talk 11:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. ~ Arjun 14:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A lot of reverting back and forth, but no one's doing it 3 times a day. The people at wikipedia-en channel suggested i ask here to full protect the article so people can't edit it until the discussion on the relevant project talk page finishes.11:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

    Fully protected --Robdurbar 14:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Full protection - Indefblocked sockpuppet messing with sockpuppet tags. —Dgiest c 09:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Full protection - Indefblocked sockpuppet messing with sockpuppet tags. —Dgiest c 09:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. Request for long term protection since once the protection expired vandalism followed immediately. wil osb 08:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.--Húsönd 14:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. Consistent unsourced NPOV overwriting attempts to clean up and Wiki-fy article. Attempts to moderate with Vandal have failed, and from user page it's not the first time. Xlh 06:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:72.94.188.92 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    full protection or semi-protection. This unregistered user continually blanks their discussion page in order to remove the many vandalism warnings on the page. This discussion page was previously fully protected by Crazycomputers in order to stop this user from blanking the page.--Just James 06:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined I don't see a need, removing warnings isnt the end of the world, user talk pages arent' walls of offences. --Robdurbar 13:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect, celebrity just died, page is getting mobbed. RJASE1 Talk 06:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected --Robdurbar 13:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. Per Jimbo Wales has suggested semi-protection may be used in cases of "...minor [biographies] of slightly well known but controversial individuals..." which are not widely watchlisted, if they are " This isn't a biography of a person, but a slightly well known, but contoversial group. So thought it might apply. I'm the only one who reverts vandalism on this page, and it happens about once a day. War wizard90 04:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Don't see how these are paticularly controversial. If vandalism was attacking I'd be inclined to agree under WP:BIOLP, but in general its not. --Robdurbar 13:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Recent heavy vandalism by IPs and vandal-only accounts - I think they might be socks of the same person. Maybe semi-protection for a while will cause them to lose interest. RJASE1 Talk 03:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Oerhaps if vandalism resumes at levels of the last two days for a week or so. --Robdurbar 13:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect - Heavy vandalism in the past couple of hours or so by multiple IPs. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 02:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It's on the mainpage. We don't protect in this case. Marskell 08:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Whu? I thought stuff on the mainpage was protected for this very reason. Nardman1 12:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protection. Persistent vandalism by IPs and new accounts PeaceNT 01:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected – riana_dzasta 10:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protect. Anon vandals continue to add speculative info such as rumors, original research, and other unverified info. -- bulletproof 3:16 21:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected – riana_dzasta 10:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Requestion a semi-protect. Lots of IP vandalism, someone ends up doing a revert almost every week. Scraimer 21:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected – riana_dzasta 10:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for unprotection

    Shortcuts

    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.

    Requesting unprotection. An admin named Nlu has placed the Goguryeo article under full protection because of edit wars and vandalism. However, the vandalism is not severe and can be corrected immediately. The edit wars can be stopped by blocking or warning the vandalizers. Good friend100 15:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Nlu protected it because of edit warring and not vandalism. Use the article talk page to sort out your issues. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 15:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotect. Vandalism issues have since subsided with only two issues arising since semi-protected status was requested by myself on 5 February 2007 and approved the same day. thewinchester 05:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected. Stable page. Marskell 10:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It's been protected for a while now without any serious vandalism. It should be safe now. It was protected by Khoikhoi (talk · contribs) without any vandalism occurring --Jj. hoaakkey 19:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined No reason to unprotect user page. --Robdurbar 13:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for significant edits to a protected page

    Shortcut

    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.

    In the United Kingdom infobox, THE PRESENT:
    |image_map = Europe location UK.png
    |map_caption = Map showing the location of the United Kingdom.
    SHOULD BECOME (AS THE MAP HAD BEEN THERE BEFORE): (copy from here viewed page, not from nowikied source here)
    |image_map = EU location UK.png
    |map_caption = Location of the [[United Kingdom]]  (dark orange)<p style="text-align:left;margin-left:1.2ex;margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:-2px;line-height:1em;">– in the [[European Union]]  (light orange)<br/>– at the [[Europe|European continent]]  (EU + clear) — ([[:Image:EU location legend.png|Legend]])</p>
    ABSOLUTE REASON: Regardless whether the EU member states should have a location map that also shows that location within the EU, all 25 other EU members show that style EU location map and most non-EU members at the European continent use the Europe location map as User:The Professor caused now to be in the United Kingdom article. (The only other exception is for now still Spain but that uses a totally different kind of map, while the current map at the UK most strongly suggests that the UK is like all the other countries that use that style map, not a member state of the UK. That is a clear false statement, not a mere POV: the fact of the membership is not disputed, and an encyclopaedia mustnot mislead people towards false facts.
    The maps were discussed at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Countries (though not in particular for the UK) and also on Talk:United Kingdom (about usage for the UK), and there is clearly no consensus; but 25 EU countries had adopted the EU location map as I checked three days ago and this largely remained so thus there appears a de facto consensus; from the short edit-war at the UK article a few days ago, it appears that only User:The Professor-User Talk:The Professor actually reverted a couple of times without support for the immediate reverts and I distinctly recall that last night his short (4 edits or so) talk page showed that several users complained for reverts on other matters as well. What I do not understand, is how there is now only one old edit and the history page confirms what is now on the page - Is this Professor an admin or a sockpuppet controlled by an admin, or how can one manipulate a history page??? Anyway, the protection appears to have been caused by an entirely different dispute, and it did not involve The Professor either. My caption text for the map is new, exactly as has been put in the infobox of the other EU members (see as sample e.g. Belgium). — SomeHuman 23 Feb2007 20:57 (UTC)
    Note: This request was here before (see above signature) but was removed without trace and without change at the article level. In case one does not want to get involved in EU-map issues, one might replace the location map with the old style image:LocationUnitedKingdom.png: that style is obsolete for European countries but it does not suggest European Union membership nor denies such. The overall importance is that a location map mustnot make the false statement "this is not a EU member state".: it must either state the truth or not make a statement at all. — SomeHuman 24 Feb2007 14:31 (UTC) 14:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined This is far too controversial for a protected edit request. Suggest you wait for protection to be removed and take the time to try and build a consensus on the article's talk page. -- zzuuzz(talk) 14:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Inacceptable: A consensus could not be reached in 4 months of continuous talk and voting by more than 50 contributors on the WikiProject Countries talk page alone. But a map is in the article. One might replace the location map with the old style image:LocationUnitedKingdom.png which style is obsolete for European countries, or with image:LocationUnitedKingdom.svg which style is new but not standard (used for Spain) and I'm not sure the latter to be available for the UK: neither style does suggest European Union membership nor denies such. The overall importance is that a location map mustnot make the false statement "this is not a EU member state": it must either state the truth or not make a statement at all, the protection had nothing to do with this (also controversial issue of a) map and cannot be an excuse for maintaining the current breaching of NPOV and of the major interest of any encyclopaedia. The change would then be limited to:

    PRESENT:
    |image_map = Europe location UK.png
    TO BECOME any ONE of these two lines:
    |image_map = LocationUnitedKingdom.png
    |image_map = LocationUK.png
    — SomeHuman 15:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps a visualization helps:

    EU location UK.png
    Liuzzo style created for all EU members, in case entire-EU colouring were to be accepted; while then all European non-EU members would use the other Liuzzo version →
    Europe location UK.png
    Liuzzo style created for all European non-EU members; and extra only in case the EU-colouring were not to be accepted, also for all EU members.
    ↑ Now wrongly in UK article ↑

    Most European countries use the Liuzzo maps the way these were originally intended: with the entire EU coloured only for EU-member states and uncoloured for the other countries (the few exceptions do not use any Liuzzo style map); as long as this situation remains, usage of the second map for a EU member (e.g. the UK) is falsifying information and absolutely inacceptable, regardless one's personal views: If the UK uses a Liuzzo map, it can only be the first (EU coloured) style unless all other EU countries would stop using that first style as well. Both series must remain available for each EU country because the maps on Wikimedia Commons are also used by other language Wikipedia's at which the other choice might be made.

    A Liuzzo map as the one on the left  simply does not exist for a dark orange Switzerland, such would be no less or more acceptable than only  the UK using the map to the right.

    LocationUnitedKingdom.png
    'old' style (assumed obsolete for European countries, but it still has its adepts and is undisputedly strictly neutral)
    LocationUK.png
    TharkunColl style (a hybrid for European countries, depicting the European continent much like the Liuzzo maps while its 'old' style colours and little detail warrants it to be undisputedly strictly neutral; the map was presented on the UK talk page though did not receive much enthousiasm; it may not have versions for any other countries)
    LocationUnitedKingdom.svg
    Rei-artur style, recent (which was not sufficiently discussed generally and did never appear preferred or discussed for the UK, the reserved image space did not yet get a proper map for the UK (see here - available maps in Rei-artur style are undisputedly strictly neutral for EU matters)

    — SomeHuman 20:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC) + 02:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: I did not yet figure out whether the funny business I had mentioned about User:The Professor is some hallucination I might have suffered from: I may have confounded the former (in any sense: The Professor), with User:The Proffessor who on 2007-02-21 introduced the inacceptable map for the UK twice as the UK history page shows. Both have a 'red' user page, but only the former has a 'blue' talk page (with one-comment), while I thought I've seen the one followed from the UK history with 4 edits on the talk page...??? — SomeHuman 03:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • There are currently messages embedded in the text 3 times that ask users to email their usernames and passwords to a hotmail account designed to look like an official email address belonging to the site monitors. This kind of scam is dangerous to have posted in the Wiki for a site that is used worldwide, but cannot be erased from the text due to the protection in place on the article. It would be great if someone could look into this. Thanks!

    Fizzbee 07:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If you'd care to explain further, that would be great. Majorly (o rly?) 10:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Basically there's a double use of another template, which should only appear in the Doc page. I've explained what to do on the talk. If you're not a template guru, the simplest thing would be to copy and paste the Meta version in. Thanks // FrankB 10:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Done If that's not worked, see my response on the talk page. --Robdurbar 13:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:The weather in London

    For the climate of London, see Climate of London.

    --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 15:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done --Robdurbar 16:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Already unprotected., as far as I can tell. Daniel.Bryant 09:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fully protected Still protected. -- Avi 18:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Istanbul is in a terrible shape and I have the resources and skills to improve it. Regards. DragutBarbarossa 18:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Propose your changes at the article's talk page, and obtain consensus with other editors before doing {{editprotected}}. Nishkid64 01:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This page is protected apparently because of his status as an ex-member of US Congress and my status as a noob. He is also one of the greatest track & field milers of all time and the discussion of his athletic career needs a major update. I have proposed some changes on the Talk page and would like to expand on this further, but am awaiting permission prior to doing a full write up.Fizbin 20:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Un-protected. It's been protected for long enough. Hopefully things have calmed down since then. Nishkid64 00:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Matrix scheme

    • There has been a minor edit war due to a disagreement over external links. It was brought to our attention that the external links failed to meet several of Wikipedia rules, and upon further investigation this was proved to be true. The links were for matrixwatch.org and cyberama.info. Both external links fail on similar points of the Verifibility and Advertising sections of the External Link rules. We have tried to discuss this rationally on the Talk page, but instead of having a rational discussion it has degraded to character assassination.

    I ask that ALL external links be deleted due to them both failing the criteria needed. --Cybertrax (talk 04:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Discuss on the talk page, it was only locked today. Majorly (o rly?) 22:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    I ask again that ALL external links be deleted due to them both failing the criteria needed. We have spent several days trying to discuss this issue on the Talk page, but both main parties agree that the discussion is going nowhere. I quote the External Link policy, whereby a discussion forum is not allowed to be used as an external link.

    --Cybertrax (talk 00:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The page is protected from re-creation. I wrote a decent article on the subject, located at this subpage - User:Flvg94/The_Truth_About_Peanut_Butter. Please substitute the current blank page with my article, and if protection is still needed against vandals, lock the article from further edits. -Flvg94 17:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined A total of zero sources, and looks barely notable anyway. Majorly (o rly?) 22:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note, In the episode, the main character of American Dad! is seen writing a Wikipedia article on "The Truth About Peanut Butter". A number of people have duplicated his efforts in real life, and this is not a notable subject at all. Nishkid64 22:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    semi-protect. High level of vandalism by IP's , I suspect the same user (or a user's friends) are merely re-adding the same vandalism. SMC 08:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected – riana_dzasta 08:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-Protection Page has been vandalsed several times in the last few days--Falcon866 01:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected while not the most heavily vandalized article I think it is a good idea to sprotect. ~ Arjun 01:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Protected title protection The log shows how many times it's been recreated. Hbdragon88 00:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected by Arjun01 -- zzuuzz(talk) 01:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Entire chunks of the article have gone missing during corrections to minor vandalism. Mrprada911 00:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. ~ Arjun 01:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protection. While this page might not get the most vandalism in a day, overall it is heavily bombarded by anons and new users. bibliomaniac15 21:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected ~ Arjun 01:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-Protection. Several days of constant vandalism, including large and hard to catch additions with some fake cites. Requested on talk page. VanTucky 22:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected -- tariqabjotu 23:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Request semi-protection. In the last 3 months or so, this userpage has been vandalized TWICE. I had to revert them both times. I have warned both of them, but if they ignored the warnings, my userpage could be vandalized more times in the future. It would be great if antivandalbot or another bot reverted it quickly and warned the vandals, but clearly that's not happening. I might be away form wikipedia for days at a time, and the vandalism could be left there and expanded so my userpage starts to rot for several days, and I don't want that. Every time I also have to update the vandal count, so every time my userpage is vandalized, I have to make more than 3 edits. Imagine if my userpage got vandalized more, I'd have to make dozens of edits. Most of the vandals are anons or new users, and only once has an anon edited my page without introducing vandalism. A reply is welcome. Thanks. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 19:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi AstroHurricane001, getting vandalized twice in 3 months is actually very good. Many articles or pages get vandalized that many time every few hours, and still don't get protection. Remember that our goal is to be open to anyone, and if your page got protected, many or most others would have to be protected too, and we would lose a big part of our openness. Also, it's unclear to me why you need to do 3 edits per attack - can't you just pick the previous version from the history, then increment your vandalism count and save it? Crum375 23:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Crum375 23:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Requesting semi-protection. Childish vandalism from anons and newly registered users. auburnpilot talk 21:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting full protection due to outbreak of edit war. Full protection would prevent further edit-warring. Tar-Elenion 21:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Same as above. Requesting full protection due to outbreak of edit war. Full protection would prevent further edit-warring. Tar-Elenion 21:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Request protection for the page Bradley pharmaceuticals and its re direct pages. For some reason the information has been deleted. I suspect it could be someone inside the company who does not want information about the company to be posted on the wikipedia. Thanks

    The article hasn't been edited by anyone besides yourself, please see the page history. Michaelas10 (Talk) 21:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Heimstern Läufer 21:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection Anonymous IP editing almost every D with nonsense and vandalism. Tenacious D Fans (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    This has gotten to beyond a joke. I propose to attach a \{\{db-web\}\} tag if this page is unprotected. 211.30.155.158 14:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The page is not protected, nor has it ever been protected. Cbrown1023 talk 15:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Railpage is a redirect, I am not involved in this but I believe the person may be asking for: Railpage Australia to be unprotected... Jacobshaven3 17:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    After a "call to arms" from an unmoderated usenet newsgroup on Feb 19, [1],[2] , a revert war has been occurring on the Railpage Australia entry (with many additions and reversions by 211.30.155.158, possibly in violation of the 3 revert rule, not sure here). After Philip_J_Rayment reverted 211.30.155.158's revisions, 211.30.155.158 placed vandalism warnings were placed on Rayments' talk page (User_talk:Philip_J._Rayment#Biased_editing_of_Railpage_Australia), and later made the odd request of enquiring after Rayments' formal qualifications. (User_talk:Philip_J._Rayment#Qualifications). It might also be worth noting that Rayment's reverts were the subject of a thread on the abovementioned usenet newsgroup [3]. 211.30.155.158 also placed a spurious AFD tag on the page, with "Article has been heavily censored to the point of being misleading" being given as the reason for deletion. It would appear that 211.30.155.158 would prefer that the page be deleted, if edits by himself are not permitted to be added to the article. (Also, my experience with Wiki's deletion policy is very limited, but I'm led to understand that Speedy Deletion - of which ((db-web)) is a criteria - is limited to articles that would not create any debate if deleted? That would not be the case with Railpage Australia.) Johnmc 21:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Requesting Full Protection due to a revert war where users insist on adding speculation and original research to the article. dposse 17:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected due to revert warring. Cbrown1023 talk 17:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    full protection Repeated vandalism. Already semi-protected, but that doesn't seem to be working. Wikipedian27 16:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Clarifying, the page was semi-protected, but the protection expired on February 19. Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=110846935"