Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Doctor Octagon (talk | contribs) at 13:54, 31 August 2006 (→‎{{Lut|User:Doctor Octagon}}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


"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.

    Full Protection. Ongoing edit warring over a category tag between numerous editors, shows no sign of abating. A cool down period might do everyone some good. Deuterium 13:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi protection Persistent vandalism and insertion of NPOV tags by banned User:Irate using various IPs and socks. Lancsalot 12:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected —Mets501 (talk) 13:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi protection Bored kids with constantly changing IPs putting in attacks and unencyclopedic info into the article. In fact for the past month almost all anon and newly-registered edits have been vandalism, this was only slowed down by previous semi-protection.--Konstable 12:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected by FireFox. —Mets501 (talk) 13:16, 31 August 2006 (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.

    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.

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

    Request to unprotect user page. Doctor Octagon 13:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Several registered users (I believe it may be just one with more than profile) keep posting things on GPS-related pages, which are untrue. This keeps happening on the noted page as well as on the Gps page -- please have a look at the discussion on the bottom of GPS page. Most of their posts are heavily biased, wanting to make the reader believe that the so-called "relativistic corrections" are critical to GPS. The consensus in the GPS community is that these are mere corrections to the Newtonian mechanics formulae as originally applied in the GPS in the 1980-ies. I do not think I need to register in order Βt, as it is precisely the anonymity option why I appreciate Wiki, just like in the old days. Now, those several users (or is it just one, "19 years old" if one wants to believe the info on their page -- they seem amazingly serious for teenagers) have just misused the fact that they are registered, and have actually locked the above page. Please unlock it. Here is the text they dislike; there is nothing in it that could be deemed speculative -- on the contrary:

    "It is often mistakenly reported that SR and GR theories are critical in operating the NAVSTAR GPS navigation system. However, GPS was never designed to utilize or test either of the two theories. Upon insisting by some relativity physicists in the late 1990-ies, GPS navigation and control messages were included immeasurably small corrections in addition to the originally pre-programmed position corrections (as due to the atmospheric, signal-multipath and other effects). Without explanation however, and in a manner that is not entirely transparent, the relativity physics community has recently started using this correction as a proof for the two relativity theories.

    In fact, the so-called "GPS relativistic correction" is too small to be measured on Earth using even the most precise (geodetic) GPS techniques so-called differential positioning (DGPS), also called the relative or geodetic GPS positioning. Thus in his classical book GPS Satellite Surveying, Alfred Leick writes (p.170): "In relative (mm) positioning, most of the relativistic effects cancel or become negligible." This is because the relativity-predicted values, if real, would amount to less than one half of the normal environmental (insurmountable) geophysical noise.

    Therefore, geometrical differencing in precise positioning cancels out most of the so-called "relativistic effects"; the GPS system can perform equally superb without SR or GR theories. Hence no known (scientific or commercial) GPS receiver seems to utilize the so-called "GPS relativistic correction". The above-cited Leick's book is considered by some to be one of the most authoritative sources on GPS geodesy nowadays. It also lists numerous references that show in greater detail why the so-called "relativistic effects" turn out to be irrelevant for achieving the highest (millimetre-level) obtainable accuracy in precision positioning. Similarly, non-geodetic (navigation) accuracy would not suffer to a noticeable degree either, since, if real, the so-called "relativistic effects" would amount to a centimetre level, which is less than any other single error-source in modern navigation. For instance, the most reliable utilization of GPS in global navigation, the WAAS system, requires no so-called "relativistic corrections" to achieve its metre-level accuracy.

    Hence, there is no evidence at the present that either of the Einstein's relativity theories is critical for the operation of the GPS system as used in local (precision) positioning or global navigation." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.253.151.77 (talk • contribs)

    Without regard to the validity of your edits: The page in question is only semiprotected. If you register an account and wait a few days, you'll be able to edit it. You'll also be significantly more anonymous if you do so - right now, every edit you're making is tagged with your IP address, whereas, if you register and make edits as a logged-in user, the edits will just have your login name attached to them. Zetawoof(ζ) 06:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. I'd wait this one out.Voice-of-All 07:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fullfilled/denied requests

    Semi-protected —Mets501 (talk) 13:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected —Mets501 (talk) 13:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi Protection There is much football transfer speculation regarding this team, and these two famous Argentinian players. There are several edit wars going on, on each page. 194.73.16.246 12:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    All three: Semi-protected —Mets501 (talk) 13:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi Protection I am constantly being mad fun of and i have been accused of vandalism and trolling for things i havent done. Please help, the evidence id on my page. THE MILJAKINATOR 10:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected —Mets501 (talk) 12:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Full Protection An edit war between myself and a vandal is occuring. There are over 100 reverts, and I've been trying to reason with him for 16 hours. If you can protect the page, I'm sure that all I need is a little more time to reach a compramise with him. He's a good contributor (over 6,000 edits) and he doesn't deserve to be blocked. Neither do I.--KojiDude 08:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The user, and you, has been blocked from editing for 24 hours. Please don't do that again. Voice-of-All 08:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi Protection 3 days of constant vandalism and changes has caused this artical to become hard to revert. Last few reverts only reverted to a less vandalised version. Request this so that the artical can be sorted. SimonD 08:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected due to moderate, sticky, vandalism. Voice-of-All 08:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Requesting full protection due to edit war. —Khoikhoi 05:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected. El_C 06:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect due to recurring vandalism.

    In the less than 3 hours since Voice of All deemed it unnecessary, no less than 6 reverts have been necessary. I -- we Wiki users -- understand that Wiki should be open and gnu-ish. However, this does not extend to casual vandalism, and the Dog article takes more than its fair share. There is a clear case for permanent semi-protection, since the damage done by these vandals reflects badly on Wikipedia's credibility and child safety. Gordon | Talk, 31 August 2006 @03:44 UTC

    Semi-protected. El_C 06:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect due to recurring vandalism --apollo2011 01:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected —Mets501 (talk) 02:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Protected since August 16th. Morton devonshire 02:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected - It's been long enough. —Mets501 (talk) 03:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect due to recurring vandalism. —this is messedrocker (talk) 01:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined - just one user's vandalism is not a cause for protection. Warn the user and if he persists report him to WP:AIV —Mets501 (talk) 02:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Full protection. This user got caught being a sockpuppet and has made legal and death threats on the talk page. I have left them there for you to examine as evidence, and then you can remove them. Jesse Viviano 01:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected —Mets501 (talk) 02:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection from sockpuppets of user evading ban and removing {{indefblocked}} message from it. Ryūlóng 20:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected —Mets501 (talk) 02:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection requested. A couple of editors are tag-team edit warring, seeking to overturn an existing consensus to impose a highly POV version of the article (and breaking the 3RR in the process). The edit war needs to be halted until the Arbitration Committee can take a look at the matter. -- ChrisO 19:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected —Mets501 (talk) 02:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Protected since August 30. It looks like the other editor involved in the "edit war" is backing down. At least that is what he says on the talk page. You could lift the protection and see if it holds.--Wehwalt 00:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not unprotected - You requested this 30 minutes after it was protected! Edit warring is not about "backing down" and one person winning. Wait until discussion has taken place on the talk page or a reasonable amount of time has passed before requesting unprotection. —Mets501 (talk) 03:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=73023181"