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
Jmlk17 (talk | contribs)
35,455 edits
Jmlk17 (talk | contribs)
35,455 edits
Line 15: Line 15:
==== {{lu|%21%21}}====
==== {{lu|%21%21}}====
'''Temporary Full Protection''' immediately requested- featured on slashdot and the register, this is going to be hit big! --[[User:Froth|<span style="text-decoration: overline underline;">'''ffroth'''</span>]] 10:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
'''Temporary Full Protection''' immediately requested- featured on slashdot and the register, this is going to be hit big! --[[User:Froth|<span style="text-decoration: overline underline;">'''ffroth'''</span>]] 10:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
:{{RFPP|nea}} Besides, we try not to preemptively protect. [[User:Jmlk17|<span style="color:#008000">Jmlk</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Jmlk17|<span style="color:#000080">1</span>]][[User_talk:Jmlk17|<span style="color:#800000">7</span>]] 10:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


==== {{la|Hans Köchler}} ====
==== {{la|Hans Köchler}} ====

Revision as of 10:19, 4 December 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.

    Temporary Full Protection immediately requested- featured on slashdot and the register, this is going to be hit big! --ffroth 10:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Besides, we try not to preemptively protect. Jmlk17 10:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary Full Protection requested - subject of page and his cult repeatedly delete any reference to Köchler's [political connections with third-world rulers which go back more than 30 years. The page was under temporary protection at my request for one week recently, but was immediately cleansed of the unflattering reference to meetings with third-world rulers while still protected. Following the earlier edits (which included a reference to Köchler's IPO site, IPO hurriedly deleted the original image from its site. (A saved version of the image referred was uploaded and is now included in the page under fair use.) Without even a minimum of adverse comment in the article, Wikipedia becomes simply a personal vanity/cult vehicle for the Köchler cult. Thank you. WikiFlier 08:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected Jmlk17 10:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Vandalized daily, how about two weeks until the show's over?.Yamanbaiia 08:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Jmlk17 10:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection. Seems to be school topic so continual IP vandalism starts when temporary block is lifted Nunquam Dormio 08:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    1 week semi-protect on user talk, please. SPA and IP disruption. DurovaCharge! 07:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Was simply trying to start a discussion about Durova's alleged abuses of power as detailed in this[1] article on the Register. Bobcat_of_Justice 09:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. Jmlk17 10:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia talk:Long term abuse/Mmbabies (edit | project page | history | links | watch | logs)

    Indefinite semi-protect Subject of LTA page is vandalizing talk page about his long term abuse using IP socks. The project page itself has been IND-SP'ed since early September for the same reason. Nate · (chatter) 07:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism.E Wing 05:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 5 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Jmlk17 06:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. Lots of IP vandalism that's really sparked within the last few weeks. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 05:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. Not really that much, just watchlist and revert when necessary. bibliomaniac15 05:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Rapfan67 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    temporary full protection User talk of banned user, continued vandalism to own talk page after indef block.slakr\ talk / 05:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. Jmlk17 05:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. Rampant IP vandalism. RJC Talk 03:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Jmlk17 03:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting semi-protection of article because SPA account Standshown is trying to change all articles which are speaking about Serbian puppet regime during WWII. About his changes today I have asked thinking of WP:Ani. If semi-protection will not be OK can we if nothing else put put on article full protection for 7 days so that there is discussion about changes on talk page ? ---Rjecina 03:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting indefinite semi-protection of this template. It is transcluded onto hundreds or possibly thousands of pages, making it very much a high-risk template; recently, it was vandalised with a picture of a penis, with an immediate and dramatic effect on many pages. Similar templates, such as {{Cleanup}}, are typically protected or semi-protected; this one should be as well, to prevent such vandalism happening again in future. Terraxos 02:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, repeated insertion of unsourced negative comments into a biography of a living person. Also eported to WP:BLPN by another editor. The IP also adds POV to other related articles. Slp1 02:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite semi-protection Vandalism, 'Tis the season. This page needs serious protection from anon IP vandals, who have been hitting it multiple times a day for a while..Mlouns 02:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The season will be over by then.  :) Jmlk17 02:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism.Marlith T/C 02:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Jmlk17 02:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protect. Requested semi-protection a few days ago and req. was denied with unclear explanation. The vandalism from IP's has continued. MrVibrating 01:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Jmlk17 02:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary full protection , Don't know if this can be fully protected as a redirect, but here goes:

    There is a group of a few users who are bent on returning this page to an article (as opposed to a redirect). The only problem? It seems that none of them have ever read WP:FICT, and since that's why the article was redirected in the first place (for not complying with WP:FICT), it simply gets reverted to a re-direct for not supplying real-world information. Many of the users in question are autoconfirmed, hence the full protection..NF24(radio me!) 01:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected Jmlk17 02:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite semi-protection Vandalism, This page is linked to from Template:Fact, so it is linked to some 80000+ pages. It has been vandalized several times since unprotection. There is no reason for anons to edit this..Mfko 00:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite full protection revert-war User prefers reverting article to non-NPOV wording, rather than dicussing, or leaving as NPOV. burnte 00:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Jmlk17 02:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    indefinite full protection User talk of banned user, indef blocked user, currently making disruptive edits on user talk page.Rjd0060 00:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection due to a tide of vandalism by ip users.--Riurik(discuss) 23:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Temporarily blocked IP kept on vandalizing the article. He was blocked for 1 hour. We'll make sure he doesn't start vandalizing it again after his block has expired, alright?.AppleMacReporter 22:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. Jmlk17 00:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection , Multiple edit wars consisting of sourced (but not reliably sourced) information being added into the article, in regards to no-showing a wrestling event..Gavyn Sykes 22:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Jmlk17 00:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect indefinitely, this request is in addition to this request as the spammer has already been known to shift his spam over to this article once the bedlam in goliath is protected. Zopwx2 22:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect indefinitely. This article, the mars volta, and several other articles have been under consistently spammed at all hours for the past few days due to this person. Despite efforts to block his alternates and temporary protection of the articles, the spamming resumes as soon as protection is lifted. I request protection until the album is released or the spammer is dealt with. Which ever comes first. Zopwx2 22:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected by Spellcast (talk · contribs). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fully protected Full-protect pending dispute resolution. Overwhelmingly reliably sourced merge keeps being reverted by POV-pusher with an unsourced personal opinion on the matter, engaging in borderline personal attacks[2][3][4] in each edit summary. Topic remains open and flagged with {{Unresolved}} at Talk:Card sharp (which should not be protected). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect indefinitely. Consensus approved and achieved this on 09/09 due to high vandalism from IPs and new users, and regular sockpuppet incursions. A new User:Newsroom hierarchies requested unprotection on 11/30 and was immediately granted; we've had at least ten cases of vandalism in the couple days since, and a lot of miscellaneous headstrong edits. The user claimed indefinite semiprotection does not apply, but per WP:PROT it clearly does. John J. Bulten 21:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected Agreed. Far too much of a high-profile article. Jmlk17 00:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. JNW 20:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection vandalism.   jj137 ♠ Talk 20:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    semi-protection Vandalism, The "new users blanking Guy's talk page" vandal is back. 3 4 different usernames so far. Last time this happened, it went on for a few hours so a 12 hour protect should work.spryde | talk 20:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, By IPs over the last few days.Marlith T/C 19:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection. IP vandalism is continual since last protection lifted. Nunquam Dormio 19:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Continued vandalism from several IPs, becoming kinda hard to revert..Rgoodermote  19:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Various Sonic the Hedgehog game articles

    Sonic the Hedgehog CD‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Sonic the Hedgehog 3‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Sonic Blast‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Sonic Triple Trouble‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Sonic Chaos‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (8-bit)‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Sonic & Knuckles‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Sonic Advance‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Sonic Advance‎ 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Sonic Advance‎ 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Semi-protect all An anon user jumping between multiple IPs has been adding game guide material (in violation of WP:NOT) to all these articles. Because the user is on so many IPs, they are ignoring any warnings to stop. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 18:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Jmlk17 04:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. High level and frequency of juvenile IP vandalism. Alice.S 18:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Anthøny 18:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. JNW 16:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Oxymoron83 17:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Lots of IP vandalism over the past couple of days.Mayalld 16:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Jmlk17 16:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Jmlk17, please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/64.81.69.243 and then reconsider. A temp full ban is called for. Thanks. -- ALLSTARecho 16:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Man, you're on top of this stuff! :) Jmlk17 17:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I meant "semi-protected". Don't know where my mind was when I said "temp full ban". blah! -- ALLSTARecho 17:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, New user has edited the article over 200 times in 3 days to try and add an unsourced POV piece.Mayalld 13:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. SkierRMH (talk) 07:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection What is presumably a single anonymous editor (in various IP ranges, including 4.238.124.* and 66.19.20*.*) keeps making the same change (largely consisting of removing sections of text) from this article (relating to a period of the band's existence under a different lead singer). Multiple editors, including myself, have been reverting these changes. This has been going on since early on 1 Dec.[5]. Copied here from WP:ANI --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 14:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: I have now managed to engage the editor in some sort of dialogue on one of his IP address's Talk page,[6] but he's still making the same change.Bondegezou 14:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Further update: The most recent IP address behind these changes has now been temporarily blocked for violating 3RR. However, they would appear not to be on a static IP address so the block may be of limited value. Temporary semi-protection may still be the best approach. Bondegezou 16:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User(s) blocked.. If the vandalism continues, re-request. Cheers, Anthøny 18:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism.E Wing 12:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Jmlk17 16:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism.E Wing 12:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Jmlk17 16:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection Page is a constant target of adding unsourced info due to speculative nature of the identity of the subject, among other things. Appears to have manifested alot from November 30th on.--293.xx.xxx.xx 11:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Woodym555 17:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting Semi-protection on my user page. User_talk:71.198.4.127 repeatedly trying to modify my user page for "Talking".

    Done --Oxymoron83 10:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Being a major upcoming film, the article is attracting lots of traffic and vandalism. As of last night and this morning, three major reverts had to take place. Semi-protection would be fine. Alientraveller 09:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Jmlk17 16:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection as candidate has withdrawn. 128.2.246.153 08:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected, until 10 January, 2008. Anthøny 18:02, 3 December 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.

    This page was protected over two months ago because of an edit war over the age range of a preteen in the lead paragraph. There has not been any edit wars on this article since. Of the two editors involved in the war, one has not edited the page or made any discussion on its talk page since the page was protected, the other user has participated in the discussion, but has not contributed to Wikipedia in the past three weeks. Additionally, six of the editors would like this article moved to preadolescence The movement proposal was opposed only by two IP addresses, one of which is a vandal. Artiste-extraordinaire has a great idea for the page. Currently the page is a completely unsourced article that consists mostly of a list. Artiste-extraordinaire has found a few articles on the physiological and social development in children in their years before puberty. In the new article we could completely avoid defining an age range in the lead paragraph. If we listed any age ranges we can restrict them to sourced references within the article, such as in a section with information from a psychologist. Jecowa 10:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    unprotection , Edit war appears to be over, this page should not be protected long term..Rtphokie 02:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Doesn't seem as if any agreement has been reached. Jmlk17 02:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    unprotection A week long semi-protection is unnecessary especially since the original protection was granted to keep easily sourced information from being replaced in the article. Problematic editting has been discussed on the talk page, the original "questions" that led to the protection have been resolved. I believe that it is time to unprotect. Kyaa the Catlord 06:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Per the talk page, just put the template to "small" - no rationale to unprotect there. SkierRMH (talk) 07:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    unprotection , Protected since september, looks like most of the linkspam has died off since original announcement of game.slakr\ talk / 00:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected Jmlk17 02:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    unprotection , protected since april.slakr\ talk / 00:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected Jmlk17 02:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    unprotect. Has been semiprotected since Jul 23 against what was probably a transient vandal. Protecting admin's talk page is also semiprotected, which is unfortunate. Please recall that there are valuable WP contributors who choose not to log in, for reasons of our own. 67.170.212.250 20:22, 3 December 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.

    Please replace indefblocked user with appropriate template? I did before it was protected, but someone mentioned on my user page reverted to his fascist quote. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  20:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done I've also reverted your userpage. - auburnpilot talk 23:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (The category should be edit rather than talk: I'm not sure how to fix that. This article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Wrote_The_Dead_Sea_Scrolls%3F_%28book%29) was fully protected today to prevent an edit-war. In its current state, the article includes a photo (the second one, inserted into the section on "reviews") that has no fair use justification (see Eric's comment to this effect on the discussion page) and the intent of which is implicitly defamatory. I have requested either removal of the photo or unprotection from the administrator who blocked it, but he feels that it would not be appropriate for him to take such actions on an article he has already protected. I have no problem with the article being protected, but the defamatory photo should certainly be removed pending a resolution of the matter through discussion.Critical Reader (talk) 03:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    P.s. Please note: the editor who inserted this photo into the article about a book by Norman Golb said of Dr. Golb the other day: "In between the lines one can read and feel the disdain, anger and indignation of the writer, that IMO reflects more poorly on him than the other way around." Now, out of seven or eight editions of this book by Golb, he finds one on which a photo, according to him, was printed upside down, and redundantly inserts it into the "reviews" section of this article about the book, without any fair use justification and without citing a single source discussing this photo. Clearly there is at least the appearance of a defamatory intent here and the photo should be removed.Critical Reader (talk) 04:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, user doesn't have suffrage. east.718 at 07:11, November 30, 2007
    Done Self revert. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it OK if someone remove the red link? They deleted the editor nomination page. :( -Goodshoped 02:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done —Kurykh 04:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The following was posted on my talk page, I take no position, but just forwarding the request to the right people. Carlossuarez46 20:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello. I'm a beginner of wikipedia. May you help me?

    Anti-Americanism. i find some edit is wrong. but i can't edit. article protected. in fornt of page, "unregistered or newly registered users is currently disabled" i'm a new user. i found you can edit this page. so may you help me?


    "In South Korea, two junior high school students were killed by American military personnel in a traffic accident at the final stage of a presidential election in 2002. As a result, the Korean public opinion was enraged and Roh Moo-hyun, who advocated anti-Americanism, was elected President. President Roh Moo-Hyun and his administration considerably weakened the alliance of the United States and South Korea.[39] Also, the Iraq War and foreign policy of America was invoked as rationales for inciting negative attitudes towards America in South Korea[citation needed]. In 2007 anti-Americanism spreads rapidly. [40]"


    in this, "In 2007 anti-Americanism spreads rapidly. [40]" [40] source is "rape of okinawa". so not relation with south korea. it is obvious WRONG. must move to japan relation sentence. i think this article need rewrite or clean.


    addition, As a result, the Korean public opinion was enraged and Roh Moo-hyun, who advocated anti-Americanism, was elected President. >> this is lie.


    President Roh Moo-Hyun and his administration considerably weakened the alliance of the United States and South Korea.[39] >> this is lie. given news[39] never metioned.


    Also, the Iraq War and foreign policy of America was invoked as rationales for inciting negative attitudes towards America in South Korea[citation needed]. >> this is uncreditible. please, attach [citation needed].


    In 2007 anti-Americanism spreads rapidly. [40] >> this is japanese relation. must move to.

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.124.22.42 (talk • contribs)

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=175684815"