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 76: Line 76:


###############Please only edit below this line.###############-->
###############Please only edit below this line.###############-->
==== {{Michael Jackson}} ====
==== Michael Jackson ====
I have spotted something wrong with the article that needs changing, plz unprotect so I can fix.
I have spotted something wrong with the article that needs changing, plz unprotect so I can fix.


Revision as of 05:42, 20 May 2006


"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

    Request either semi-protection, full protection, or move protection by placing it in bold text (add ''' before and after a word to make it bold) at the beginning of your statement.

    semi-protection One anonymous user insists on vandalizing the page; he has been edited a few times in the past year for the same edit. MarcelLionheart 03:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)MarcelLionheart[reply]

    Not enough activity to warrant protection. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    full protection Edit war going on between me and a vandal/deleter who is a new Wikipedia member. I don't want to revert anymore because I have done so 3 times. Bds yahoo 23:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. For now, be sure to use descriptive edit summaries and discuss edits on talk. Voice-of-AllTalk 01:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    full protection user PIO (Jxy) keeps changing article to be POV(nationalist) and non-factual, despite being proven wrong on the talk page numerous times. Has refused to discuss anything in any detail (mostly personal attacks), and reveal any valid sources. I therefore request this page be fully protected to what it was before he started the edits to this revision. I also invite others to review this article so we can have a constructive debate on this topic, as there are only 2 people active on the talk page. --Zivan56 18:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected due to revert warring. Voice-of-AllTalk 18:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection anon user keeps blanking section claiming it's a better version.--Joe Jklin 17:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like the two main offenders have been blocked. Drop me a note on my talk page if it continues under another IP. · Katefan0 (scribble) 19:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    One newcomer continues to litter the article with genocide talk. He has been destroying the article's history for about a week now. No other edits take place there except constant reverts. I request full protection of the article for the time being. --Ghirla -трёп- 14:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 15:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have referenced my claim, bolstered it, and i'm not the only one who has reverted. You say use the talk page, and i have. Given that there are no recent replies to my comments on the talk page, i have assumed that what i have written is ok, and thus have reverted whenever my contribution has been deleted. Furthermore, please indicate where in my contribution is this so called 'genocide talk'. If you have to make up lies in order to bolster your case, its speaks volumes about your true intentions. I hope the admins have an objective mind. Thankyou.Suicup 05:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Full, A user, User:Panem (talk • contribs), continues to incert an very POV statements into the articles listed. Also as well the relationship between what he has posted and thae article are at best suspect, and could be considered bordering trival. Attempts to clsun up the pov by myself and several other users hass been met with claims of censorship and reversions to the pov version. Several of the sources that the user claims back up his statemnsts do not fully and only mention in statastical means, not supporting all the clims that are made, several of which are speculative or are overly general and broad. Becides POV, the edits violate severl points of NOT, and his endit now could be said to be making a POINT. This user has a histiry, though short, of similar style edits of other articles. and has been reported to WP:WQA. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 07:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll talk to the user.Voice-of-AllTalk 07:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I seriously doubt that is going to make a difference, you might want to check his on talk page as well has his edit history. the user is purely here to push an adgenda. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 07:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well i am going to request this agian, the use has since re-incerted the pov and also basiclay threw the idea of discussion initiated by User:Voice of All, see [1]. Though the user has been since blocked for 24hoiurs, i serioulsy doubt that will prevnet the said user form reincerting it's pov back into the article once the block is over, or using an anon or sockpuppett acount to reincert the pov. If not locked, at the least the pages should be mointered for supicious edits and then action taken accordingly. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 02:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection'. Extreme spamming (once every day or so) by sockpuppets, some with confusing names. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 00:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. (0.329 marked revert(s) per day (since last active)) Voice-of-AllTalk 06:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Page seems to be a very popular target of vandals and jokers, which is taking a lot of time and effort to revert. Request to semi-protection. Gryffindor 00:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist, as I have, and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-AllTalk 06:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. This article is getting vandalised on a daily basis, I request at least semi-protection (if not full protection actually) because this really needs to stop IMO. Thank you. Gryffindor 23:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Voice-of-AllTalk 06:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Ammount of vandal resently very high.Mabye a 5 day semi would be good. --Actown e 18:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. Thanks for the report, but please remember to place new reports at the top of the section next time. · Katefan0 (scribble) 19:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for unprotection

    If you simply want to make spelling corrections or add information to a protected page that is not disputed, and you are not involved in any disputes there, consider simply adding {{Editprotected}} to the article's talk page, along with an explanation of what you want to add to the page.

    Michael Jackson

    I have spotted something wrong with the article that needs changing, plz unprotect so I can fix.

    Protected for ten days; IP vandal(s) likely moved on. Joe 05:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The admin who deleted the page also authorized its recreation. Please see his talk page. The edited and revived page should not have been deleted and protected. Zigzogger 01:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I know this article receives a vast amount of vandalism, but I think as one of the first articles linked from the Main Page it's a valuable page for people to make experiments with. I understand that Today's Featured Article is never protected for the same reason. Personally my first ever Wikipedia edit ([2]) was from an IP address to Wikipedia, and had I not been able to verify that the test worked, I might never have become a Wikipedian. — SteveRwanda 15:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. · Katefan0 (scribble) 19:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Dispute has been resolved, although very tenuous and may be subjected to more vandalism, will be dealt with through admin. Payneos 23:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm going to deny unprotection for now. There still seems to be some discussion going on. It looks like the vandalism spree is over, however. Come back in a couple days. -Mysekurity [m!] 14:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

    Current requests for significant edits to a protected page

    Please demonstrate a good reason for an edit to a protected page. These are only done in exceptional circumstances, or when there is very clear consensus for an edit and continued protection. Please link to the talk page where consensus was reached.

    You may also add {{Editprotected}} to the article's talk page if you would like an inconsequential change of some kind made, but note that most of these should simply wait for unprotection.

    See also: Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests

    I wish to have all or at least part of my contribution remain in the article. I have referenced my paragraph, bolstered it, and i'm not the only one who has reverted. Some have said use the talk page, and i have. Given that there are no recent replies to my comments on the talk page, i have assumed that what i have written is ok, and thus have reverted whenever my contribution has been deleted. Furthermore, please indicate where in my contribution is this so called 'genocide talk'. If Ghirlandajo has to make up lies in order to bolster his case, its speaks volumes about his true intentions. I hope the admins have an objective mind. Thankyou.Suicup 05:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=54149736"