Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection: Difference between revisions

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 63: Line 63:
*{{nacc}} {{re|10mmsocket}} I'm not an IP sock (isn't that what [[WP:SPI]] is for anyway) you really need to slow down review diffs and excersise more care when employing semi-automated tools, anyway I've given up on that page presumably you'll realize your error soon enough, but please don't spread disruption to other pages I'd rather not see you blocked. Anyway I don't think this needs protection yet. Cheers, [[Special:Contributions/2A03:F80:32:194:71:227:81:1|2A03:F80:32:194:71:227:81:1]] ([[User talk:2A03:F80:32:194:71:227:81:1|talk]]) 18:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
*{{nacc}} {{re|10mmsocket}} I'm not an IP sock (isn't that what [[WP:SPI]] is for anyway) you really need to slow down review diffs and excersise more care when employing semi-automated tools, anyway I've given up on that page presumably you'll realize your error soon enough, but please don't spread disruption to other pages I'd rather not see you blocked. Anyway I don't think this needs protection yet. Cheers, [[Special:Contributions/2A03:F80:32:194:71:227:81:1|2A03:F80:32:194:71:227:81:1]] ([[User talk:2A03:F80:32:194:71:227:81:1|talk]]) 18:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
*{{nacc}} Would recommend both editors be reminded of policies against edit warring, since the issue is clearly a content dispute, just by looking at the horrendous edit history as of recent, where both editors were actively engaged in an edit war, one using semi-automated tools to gain an advantage. <span style="background-color: orange; color: green">[[User:EggRoll97|EggRoll97]]</span> <sup>([[User_talk:EggRoll97|talk]]) </sup> 08:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
*{{nacc}} Would recommend both editors be reminded of policies against edit warring, since the issue is clearly a content dispute, just by looking at the horrendous edit history as of recent, where both editors were actively engaged in an edit war, one using semi-automated tools to gain an advantage. <span style="background-color: orange; color: green">[[User:EggRoll97|EggRoll97]]</span> <sup>([[User_talk:EggRoll97|talk]]) </sup> 08:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
*{{nacc}} {{re|EggRoll97}} what's funny about this one is I actually jumped in to revert a blocked editor's contributions. So here's {{noping|10mmsocket}}'s (not pinging because I'd rather not deal with more spurious harassment claims) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donkey_Hodie_(TV_series)&diff=1015813338&oldid=1015813066 edit] and there's me making the same edit two minutes later [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donkey_Hodie_(TV_series)&diff=1015813711&oldid=1015813500 here]. Things only get weird because then 10mmsocket reverts me. It's still a whatever at that point, RCPers tripping over each other or occasionally misclicking happens. I long ago lost track of the number of times I've been accidentally reported to AIV. Anyway, so I restore the original version [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donkey_Hodie_(TV_series)&diff=1015813865&oldid=1015813734 here] but unfortunately 10mm apparently no longer even bothers to check diffs when reverting. Even my attempt to keep things good natured [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:10mmsocket&diff=1015815147&oldid=1007300270 here] was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:10mmsocket&diff=1015815322&oldid=1015815147 reverted] using twinkle's vandalism rollback function, they also broke an unrelated page I had just fixed because "must revert everything this bad person has done without looking" I can't wait until they discover massrollback.js. Anyway, In years past when I had more energy that probably would've led to an ANI so someone could hammer into them the need to [[WP:ENGAGE]] and focus on accuracy rather than speed when doing RCP, but these days I just can't seem to [[WP:DGAF|muster the energy anymore]]. Either they'll recalibrate on their own or they'll eventually cause enough disruption to be blocked, but either way someone else will have to deal with it. I'll be off this IP address forever in less than 24 hours anyway and I fully expect to enjoy a nice long wiki-break. [[Special:Contributions/2A03:F80:32:194:71:227:81:1|2A03:F80:32:194:71:227:81:1]] ([[User talk:2A03:F80:32:194:71:227:81:1|talk]]) 15:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


=== [[:Weather]] ===
=== [[:Weather]] ===

Revision as of 15:24, 4 April 2021

"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 increase in protection level

    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.

    The Vampire Diaries

    Semi-protection: Frequent IP vandalism. I know I already requested earlier, but shortly after protection was declined, another vandalized style edit appeared. Kay girl 97 (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Pending-changes protected --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Trans man

    Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing. Funcrunch (talk) 17:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User(s) blocked. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Animal testing

    Indefinite semi-protection: I think this page needs indefinite semi-protection because it is insanely controversial. It’s been vandalised far too many times to count. Although I understand why the vandals are doing it, and am opposed to animal testing myself, vandalising this page is not the way. It’s disruptive. Can someone please protect this page? HelenDegenerate (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Pending-changes protected--Ymblanter (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Danny McBride

    Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Multiple IPs (likely same person) removing images from the same articles without explanation. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 17:35, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Keeley Hawes

    Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Multiple IPs (likely same person) removing images from the same articles without explanation. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 17:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    American Airlines Flight 11

    Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Wretchskull (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Temperature

    Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Wretchskull (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    British Empire

    Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – continuous vandalism right after expiration of protection templates. Wretchskull (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Donkey Hodie (TV series)

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Blocked editor User:Ripple346 and his IP sock(s) keep fiddling. 10mmsocket (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • (Non-administrator comment) @10mmsocket: I'm not an IP sock (isn't that what WP:SPI is for anyway) you really need to slow down review diffs and excersise more care when employing semi-automated tools, anyway I've given up on that page presumably you'll realize your error soon enough, but please don't spread disruption to other pages I'd rather not see you blocked. Anyway I don't think this needs protection yet. Cheers, 2A03:F80:32:194:71:227:81:1 (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator comment) Would recommend both editors be reminded of policies against edit warring, since the issue is clearly a content dispute, just by looking at the horrendous edit history as of recent, where both editors were actively engaged in an edit war, one using semi-automated tools to gain an advantage. EggRoll97 (talk) 08:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator comment) @EggRoll97: what's funny about this one is I actually jumped in to revert a blocked editor's contributions. So here's 10mmsocket's (not pinging because I'd rather not deal with more spurious harassment claims) edit and there's me making the same edit two minutes later here. Things only get weird because then 10mmsocket reverts me. It's still a whatever at that point, RCPers tripping over each other or occasionally misclicking happens. I long ago lost track of the number of times I've been accidentally reported to AIV. Anyway, so I restore the original version here but unfortunately 10mm apparently no longer even bothers to check diffs when reverting. Even my attempt to keep things good natured here was reverted using twinkle's vandalism rollback function, they also broke an unrelated page I had just fixed because "must revert everything this bad person has done without looking" I can't wait until they discover massrollback.js. Anyway, In years past when I had more energy that probably would've led to an ANI so someone could hammer into them the need to WP:ENGAGE and focus on accuracy rather than speed when doing RCP, but these days I just can't seem to muster the energy anymore. Either they'll recalibrate on their own or they'll eventually cause enough disruption to be blocked, but either way someone else will have to deal with it. I'll be off this IP address forever in less than 24 hours anyway and I fully expect to enjoy a nice long wiki-break. 2A03:F80:32:194:71:227:81:1 (talk) 15:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Weather

    Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism. Wretchskull (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Phil Anselmo

    Semi-protection: Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content. FMSky (talk) 21:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Mamunul Haque

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – A lot of criticized person for various reasons in bangladesh. Risky articles of the living person. -Shakil Hosen Talk 22:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    KL Rahul

    Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Dee03 23:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Mahsa Shoaran

    Semi-protection for a day or so: An IP keeps adding material violating WP:BLP. I'm communicating with the IP, and I expect that they are going to understand and comply, so I don't think there is a need to block and I think just semi for a brief while will work. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    BKN

    Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism, addition of unsourced content and disruptive editing. A IP hopping vandal has targeted this page for many months by adding in fake information and will refuse to give up on reverting it how he/she wants the page. It's clogging up the history and nobody has done anything to protect it or something. Luigitehplumber (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Kathryn Newton

    Extended confirmed protection: Persistent disruptive editing – promotional editing by pr agency. Atlantic306 (talk) 03:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    ASAP (Philippine TV program)

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Keeping on adding non-original networks on original network section. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 03:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    SunnyD

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Two non-autoconfirmed users vandalizing; possibly coordinated. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Divya S. Iyer

    Semi-protection: Recent disruptive editing by IP editors. Possibly related: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Phoenix man. Beccaynr (talk) 03:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Pazardzhik

    Semi-protection: A set of WP:SPA is edit-warring, refusing essentially any discussion and disrupting this article. Jingiby (talk) 03:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Please discuss cintent abd sourcing on talk --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    FIFA International Match Calendar

    Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism – GOAT vandalism. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Subject of a political controversy. I'm somewhat hesitant to accuse anybody of sockpuppetry but there is a high level of IP edits with very similar edits/edit summaries from different IPs. Looking for temporary relief to maintain WP:NPOV. BriefEdits (talk) 04:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Chaeyoung

    Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Continuous vandalism. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Trump Force One

    Temporary protection: Persistent vandalism. Serols (talk) 07:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Mohun Bagan A.C.

    Extended confirmed protection: Persistent vandalism – Disruption/vandalism by some editors (like User:IAmPushpak) for a long time. Addition of materials against the discussion/consensus related to the article and reliable sources and without following NPOV.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  07:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Non-administrator comment ArnabSaha, This is an edit warring/content dispute between you and IAmPushpak, so i recommend you to report that user to ANEW or AIV. 36.68.161.33 (talk) 10:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    36.68.161.33 Admin action was taken in the user talkpage and this is not a single editor. This kind of disruption/vandalism happens every alternate week.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  13:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This user needs to see the page history. Argument that there is "kind of disruption/vandalism happens every alternate week" is wrong. It doesn't believe that the vandalism is predominantly conducted by a single user, which it can be resolved in ANI, ANEW, or AIV. Aside from that, most edits from "every alternate week" is good faith. 116.206.35.25 (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Saxophone

    Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Wretchskull (talk) 09:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. -- LuK3 (Talk) 12:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Cabbage

    Pending changes: Persistent vandalism. Wretchskull (talk) 10:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Only one edit (made by a bot) in April. -- LuK3 (Talk) 12:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Shakti - Astitva Ke Ehsaas Ki

    Semi-protection: There have been much vandalism and many poorly written edits to this article by IPs. I believe that certain IPs are really a user who was banned on November 24 last year for frequent vandalism of south-central Asian entertainment articles. An excessive amount of editors' time is being used to revert IP edits. Jellysandwich0 (talk) 11:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    2022 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC Second Round

    Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Re-escalation is required in light of continuous edit warring by newbies. Assem Khidhr (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: Newbies is actually IP. 116.206.35.25 (talk) 14:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    FCA Serbia

    Move-protection: One of many Fiat Chrysler Automobiles subsidiary articles that has been moved with no discussion following the merger of FCA to Stellantis, despite the subsidiary name changes haven't occurred which falls into WP:CRYSTALBALL. Andra Febrian (talk) 13:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Eric Greitens

    Temporary semi-protection: Vandalism and BLP violations. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 13:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Seeman (politician)

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – On and off vandalism/removal of sourced content by IPs and new users is going on this article for quite sometime. It started again after the protection expired on 23 March 2021 [1]. IPs/users do not engage in discussion either, despite requests in the edit summaries, IP/user talk pages or article talk page. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Ezra Miller

    Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – Pronoun warring. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    1994–95 UEFA Champions League group stage

    Temporary semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism, persistent addition of unsourced POV content. – PeeJay 14:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Nina Nesbitt

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – IP disruption; the ongoing Scottish-British-Scottish-British edit war. Magatta (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for reduction in protection level

    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.

    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.

    Shortcuts

    Hurricane Helene

    Reason: Looking through the history indicates the main edit wars are IP vs EC editors, not EC vs EC. Can this article please be downgraded from full administrative protection to EC protection? I believe protection skipped EC protection and was set straight to administration protection, despite it being edit wars from IP vs EC editors. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't like to essentially grant AC or EC editors the edit war through protection if there seem to be legitimate differences that require true consensus to resolve. It was (and is) hard to tell since the talk page has been sort of underutilized for this purpose and what discussion has taken place there seems to have centered around other users' misconduct, bad faith or allegations of same.
    There is no requirement that protection go through levels before being imposed. Often it is, yes, but if I think full protection for a very limited time (which I think the requesting editor may have asked for in this case) would work better, I'm going to do it. Daniel Case (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There was two disagreements ongoing. One on if the damage total was unofficial/5th costliest. This has a consensus on the talk page, which bluntly was IP additions with EC removals. The item was actually admin edit request done (the way the EC editors were doing it) following this full protection. The other item of discussion was adding conspiracy theories or not. That discussion involved 2 EC editors, plus 2 IP editors. So, respectfully, full protection was unwarranted in my opinion. EC protection along with maybe a TP message and/or edit-warring notice to the 2 EC editors would have been sufficient. Basically, I am saying you jumped the gun on the full protection, which is why I am requesting it be dropped down to EC (since every EC editor involved is on the TP). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    EC former Helene editor here, so a bit biased but I feel like it should be open to EC per above. In addition, if needed, I would tell them Conspiracy theories about the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season exists and that only the most notable conspiracy theories by notable figures(1-3 of them IMO) should be added to this article. Wildfireupdateman (talk) 03:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As the original user who requested protection, an edit war with Weather writer, Zzzs and Drdpw, three EC editors, occurred. Thus the full must remain. --Coster85 (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Qeparo

    Reason: Not such a popular page to require indefinite semi-protection. 62.74.24.175 (talk) 22:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Halsey (singer)

    Reason: Protected over 6 years ago. Vandals would have long gone by now. Protecting admin is not active hence this request. LibStar (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Username policy

    Reason: This is a bit of a funny one. I need to ask a question about the username policy to make sure the name I'm going to use is allowed before I make an account, but I can't use the talk page until I've made an account! 153.90.20.14 (talk) 00:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This page, not the one I linked: Wikipedia talk:Username policy 153.90.20.14 (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Wikipedia:Requests[reply]

    Dark Emu (book)

    Unprotection: Editing and talk page discussion have both been substantially reduced for an extended period of time. Perhaps keep semi-protection to avoid IP vandals. Ganesha811 (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for 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.
    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.
    Further information: Wikipedia:Edit requests


    Gaza genocide

    My suggestion is to leave out the following 2 sentences in the "German complicity" paragraph as they seem to be based on misunderstandings:

    "She also highlighted police suppression of pro-Palestine protests throughout Germany[509] as evidence of state complicity.[508] Karen Wells et al. highlight how Germany has entrenched its complicity in Israel's actions by banning use of the word "genocide" in reference to Israel.[471][better source needed]"

    1. In general violent protests are not allowed in Germany. As some of the first pro-Palestine protests were violent, they were sometimes forbidden by courts, if they were expected to turn violent. But that is common policy in Gemany with all subjects and not special for pro-Palestine protests.

    Meanwhile, there even is a calendar concerning pro-Palestinian protests[2] with daily up to 20 protests all over Germany. Thus, there is no general police suppression of pro-Palestine protests as is suggested by the current wording.

    2. The word “genocide” is not banned in reference to Israel in Germany - maybe that was a misunderstanding: What is not allowed in Germany is to call for genocide against Jews. The slogan “From the river to the sea” is seen as such call and banned. Gilbert04 (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @FortunateSons: A quick browse shows at least for the first part support for removal, can you add any additional incite? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can confirm that both statements are broadly true. IMO, the best resource for this discussion (in the contemporary context) is probably Steinberg: Versammlungsfreiheit nach dem 7. Oktober - NVwZ 2024, 302. Direct citation: “Die Subsumtion unter diesen Tatbestand bereitet aber auch sonst Probleme. Die Stadt Frankfurt a. M. hatte dem Anmelder einer Versammlung „Frieden in Nahost" am 2.12.2023 untersagt, während der Versammlung zur Vernichtung Israels aufzurufen, dem Staat Israel das Existenzrecht abzusprechen, sowie die Aussagen „Israel Kindermörder", „Juden Kindermörder", „Israel bringt Kinder um" sowie „From the river to the sea" zu tätigen. Diese Beschränkungen hob das VG Frankfurt vollständig auf. Auf die Beschwerde der Stadt differenzierte der VGH Kassel Aufrufe zur Vernichtung Israels verstießen - wie gesagt - gegen § 111 StGB und die Aussage „Juden Kindermörder" erfülle den Tatbestand der Volksverhetzung (§ 130 StGB). Demgegenüber wurden andere Außerungen wie „Kindermörder Israel" oder die Bezeichnung der israelischen Militäroperationen in Gaza als „Genozid" nicht beanstandet und die Entscheidung des VG insoweit aufrechterhalten. Es sei davon auszugehen, dass bei den militärischen Verteidigungshandlungen Israels auch Kinder zu Schaden kämen. Eine solche laienhafte Zuspitzung sei im Rahmen der Meinungsfreiheit hinzunehmen. Anders hatte der VGH Mannheim am 21.10.2023 ein Verbot der Parole „Israel Kindermörder" und „Israel bringt Kinder um" durch die Versammlungsbehörde trotz bestehender Zweifel über deren Strafbarkeit aufrechterhalten; im Verfahren des vorläufigen Rechtsschutzes sei nur eine summarische Prüfung möglich; eine einmal getätigte Äußerung könne nicht rückgängig gemacht werden. Die Unterscheidung zwischen antisemitisch und antiisraelisch stellt sicherlich eine Gratwanderung dar, die hier im Einzelnen nicht beschrieben werden kann“autotranslated: “However, the subsumption under this offense also causes other problems. On December 2, 2023, the city of Frankfurt am Main had prohibited the person registering a meeting "Peace in the Middle East" from calling for the destruction of Israel during the meeting, from denying the State of Israel the right to exist, and from making the statements "Israel, child murderer," "Jews, child murderer," "Israel kills children" and "From the river to the sea." The Administrative Court of Frankfurt completely lifted these restrictions. In response to the city's complaint, the Administrative Court of Kassel differentiated that calls for the destruction of Israel violated - as mentioned - Section 111 of the Criminal Code and that the statement "Jews, child murderer" constituted incitement to hatred (Section 130 of the Criminal Code). In contrast, other statements such as "Israel, child murderer" or the description of Israeli military operations in Gaza as "genocide" were not objected to and the Administrative Court's decision was upheld in this respect. It can be assumed that children would also be harmed in Israel's military defense actions. Such a lay exaggeration must be accepted within the framework of freedom of expression. On October 21, 2023, the Mannheim Higher Administrative Court upheld a ban on the slogans "Israel, child murderer" and "Israel kills children" by the assembly authority despite existing doubts about their criminal liability; in the interim legal protection procedure, only a summary examination is possible; a statement once made cannot be reversed. The distinction between anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli is certainly a balancing act that cannot be described in detail here.” There is no broad ban on pro-Palestinian protests either, and they were even allowed to happen on Oct. 7 of this year (in some cases). While there are legal disputes on specifics for both, I’m pretty confident that no reasonable person would disagree with “broadly permitted” regarding both claims. FortunateSons (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bonus: there can be cases where something isn’t criminal, but can be restricted in other ways, for example due to different burdens of proof or social pressures. FortunateSons (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed #2. But there does seem to be evidence that pro-Palestine protests have been banned in parts of Germany at times.[3][4][5].VR (Please ping on reply) 14:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Maybe the following article gives a bit more clarity.[[6]] Gilbert04 (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately that source seems incomplete. Germany has indeed suppressed peaceful criticism of Israel.[7] And Washington Post says "A planned photo exhibit in southwestern Germany was canceled as a result of social media posts by its curator, including one describing “genocide” in Gaza."[8] VR (Please ping on reply) 22:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I do not think that any source will ever be complete. Let me add two more.[[9]][[10]] Gilbert04 (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Gaza genocide 2

    Consider changing "The Israeli government rejected South Africa's allegations, and accused the court of being antisemitic, which it often does when criticised" to "The Israeli government has been accused of consistently weaponizing antisemitism against it's critics, including in the ICJ ruling." Ecco2kstan (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The Weaponization of antisemitism page hyperlinked over "often done" has many sources to draw from regarding the accusations' consistency and nature.
    My main concern with the original text is that it's voiced as if it's an observation made by a Wikipedian. The benefit here is that the weaponization of antisemitism has a clearer consistency grounded outside of Wikipedia. Perhaps other ways to word this out include adding a time scale (increasingly accused since Oct. 7th) or specifying the critique (against critiques of their actions since Oct 7th).
    If a lead paragraph change is necessary, there may be reason to outline Israeli motives and conditions for the genocide, including Zionism and anti-Arab racism. Ecco2kstan (talk) 23:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ecco2kstan, how about: "The Israeli government rejected South Africa's allegations. Supporters of Israel say that accusing Israel of genocide is both antisemitic[11][12] and a form of Holocaust erasure[13], but others argue antisemitism shouldn't be exploited to shield Israel from such allegations.[14][15][16][17]".VR (Please ping on reply) 00:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not as familiar with the Holocaust erasure claims, but I'm happy with that reworking! If that weaponization of Holocaust denial detail isn't on the weaponization of antisemitism page already, it might be a worthwhile phenomenon incorporate if there's more citations you can find. I might look into it myself. Thanks! Ecco2kstan (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That does sound quite balanced. +1 from me. Neutral Editor 645 (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vice regent: Would you please make this change, so we can close this request? ~Anachronist (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The text I originally wanted modified was changed to "Israel's supporters say that accusing Israel of genocide is antisemitic, but others argue antisemitism should not be exploited to shield Israel from such allegations" after other discussions on the talk page. I almost like it better, but by saying "Israel's supporters" it relieves some of the responsibility from the Israeli government in the accusations that was, to an extent, duly credited in the original modification. Maybe now, it should just say "The Israeli government and their supporters say that accusing the state for genocide antisemitic..." or something similar. Ecco2kstan (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Gaza genocide 3

    The 70% figure in both the primary and the secondary source refers to the deaths that were verified by the UN Human Rights Office, not the totality of deaths in Gaza.

    Accordingly, the current phrasing "70% of Palestinian deaths in Gaza are women and children" is inaccurate and should be changed to "70% of the 8,119 verified deaths were women and children" Zlmark (talk) 06:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    List of highest-grossing Indian films

    in the content, higehst grossing franchises, rank 4 (Cop Universe), in that one, the movie Singham Returns (2014) is highlighted in green which indicates it is a recent movie, but actually the movie Singham Again (2024) should be highlighted in green because unlike Singham Returns, it is a recent movie, it has wrongly been marked, kindly correct it. Thanks :) Zev the Editor (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Two-state solution

    I would like to request the addition of the following paragraph on Singapore’s support for a two-state solution under the section "International Positions on the Two-State Solution" in the Two-state solution article:

    International Positions on the Two-State Solution

    Singapore: Singapore supports a two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, advocating for a negotiated outcome aligned with relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. According to Singapore’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Singapore believes this approach allows Israelis and Palestinians to coexist peacefully and securely, considering it the only viable path toward a comprehensive, just, and lasting resolution. Singapore also consistently upholds the Palestinian right to a homeland. The PLO, which constitutes the key pillar of the current Palestinian Authority, accepts Israel's right to exist and has renounced terrorism.[1]

    EsenL (talk) 02:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ "Reply to Parliamentary Question on Palestine". Retrieved 2024-11-12.
    Source? Providing a source to back up your edit drastically improves the chance it'll be done. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 02:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    have added! thanks! EsenL (talk) 02:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Bengalis

    I would like to request that... (1. According to 2023 estimates the USA has 453,191 speakers.[1]
    2. According to 2021 census, Canadas has 120,600 speakers[2].
    3. According to 2021 census, Nepal has 23,774 speakers.) . 106.221.114.2 (talk) 03:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ https://data.census.gov/table/ACSDT1Y2023.B16001?q=bengali&hidePreview=false&vintage=2018
    2. ^ https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=9810021701

    Gaza genocide - the 186,000 indirect deaths estimate

    In the "Indirect" section, the following sentence should be added after "186,000 or even more deaths could be attributable to the current conflict in Gaza":

    Three days after the publication, one of the writers, Professor Martin McKee, clarified that the 186,000 figure was “purely illustrative”[1] and stated that “our piece has been greatly misquoted and misinterpreted.”[2]

    References

    1. ^ "Concerns regarding Gaza mortality estimates". The Lancet. November 4, 2024.
    2. ^ "'186,000 Gazans dead': Lancet magazine publishes new blood libel". The Jerusalem Post. July 9, 2024. 
    Zlmark (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Springfield pet-eating hoax

    I would like to request that a change be made for accuracy under the subhead Origin and spread: Other events. There is a reference to a photo of a man carrying two dead geese, but it is actually only one goose. Footnotes 54, 58, and 59 all state that there is one goose in the photo. Footnote 60 says two geese, but this is evidently a mistake on TMZ's part as the photo itself clearly shows only one goose.

    I suggest that the wording "man carrying two dead Canada geese" be changed to "man carrying a dead Canada goose".

    In the next sentence I suggest that the wording "The geese were roadkill" either be changed to "The goose was roadkill" or that this part of the sentence be eliminated since the only source for the goose being roadkill is the TMZ article which may be unreliable and perhaps should be removed as a reference? It's possible the official quoted by TMZ was referring to a different incident altogether involving two roadkill geese and TMZ mistakenly linked this to the Columbus photo.

    Then I suggest in the following sentence the wording "stealing geese" be changed to "stealing a goose".

    Also, I would like to suggest that the semi-protected status be lifted from the Talk page of this article. 2600:100A:B10A:4AA1:0:21:7E13:E301 (talk) 23:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The talk-page protection cannot be reversed here; either contact El C or appeal at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement to get it lifted. (I will note, however, that the semi-protection is set to lift 16 December.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Gaza genocide 4

    I suggest changing the map on the states agreeing with with the Genocide charge (green coloured) to include Spain and Ireland, as these declared to join South Africa's case in the ICJ and generally agree with the allegations in public statements. Ireland also passed a motion in the parliament declaring it a genocide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:9e8:9a4:6900:50f:51e:c5cd:b7cf (talk • contribs) 15:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Geography of Honduras

    The photo showing hurricane Iota in satellite view does NOT show it above Honduras as stated. It actually shows it above Columbia and Venezuela. It needs to be removed from this article as it is not relevant to Honduras. 73.92.143.138 (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The Butterfly Effect

    chang the word the to gyatt 2601:C9:8000:20F0:4925:634F:B5BE:6734 (talk) 01:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Further information: Wikipedia:Edit requests

    Create a level 3 header with a link to the article in question, then a {{pagelinks}} template and then the reason.

    Handled requests

    A rolling archive of the last seven days of protection requests can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Rolling archive.

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=1015954195"