Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Samsara (talk | contribs) at 17:15, 7 February 2019 (→‎Daniel Brandt: conclusion). 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 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.

    Shortcuts

    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.


    Invictus Games

    Reason: Request temporary semi-protection. For the past few weeks, and after any announcement with this Foundation, vandalism and/sockpuppetry occurs on these and related pages. The editing with unreliable or inaccurate sources make it difficult to read and lead to poor editing of the page Cibrian209 (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: I've reviewed the edit history of the article, and there's a lot of suspicious editing from new accounts. ECP may be necessary, but I'm on the fence, so I'll leave the decision to another administrator. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Middle Belt

    Reason: Unregistered and new editors editing page without a proper understanding of the subject matter. Kambai Akau (talk) 20:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Doug Davis (businessman)

    Reason: Repeat of of vandalism an antisemitic bent KnittingQueenKY (talk) 21:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. I've warned the editor. If they continue, please report them to WP:ANI. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Southern Kaduna

    Reason: Unseasoned editors with poor knowledge of the area attempting to vandalism page. Kambai Akau (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots

    Reason: Breaking news on the topic will likely lead to many edits with conflicting information 50.35.75.176 (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Already protected by administrator Elli. It looks like the level of disruption increased. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Security incidents involving Donald Trump

    Reason: Donald Trump attacked a rally. Requesting ECP as part of American politics sanctions. Ovioas,wo (talk) 22:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Not done. The article is already semi-protected and that seems to be sufficient right now. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    2024 assassination attempt of Donald Trump

    Reason: High vandalism. High political. Post-1992 ArbCom protection needed. Page already admin-move protected, but somehow was not even EC protected. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Why is it only semi protected please make it extended confirmed protected 24.115.255.37 (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not done. Article is protected at the current location. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Donald Trump

    Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Alleged assassination attempt. We may need some time to sort through this, and then will need to return it to ECP. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Protecting it would be a bit premature at this point. The article is already ECP. Let's try issuing some warnings if needed. We're dealing with EC editors. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots

    Reason: Already seeing higher levels of IP vandalism at this page. – TCMemoire 23:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Already done + duplicate 24.115.255.37 (talk) 23:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Already protected by administrator Elli. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Security incidents involving Donald Trump

    Reason: existing vandalism - current event LucasR muteacc (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Duplicate 24.115.255.37 (talk) 23:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done 24.115.255.37 (talk) 23:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Already protected by administrator Elli. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots

    Reason: existing vandalism - breaking news/current event LucasR muteacc (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Duplicate 24.115.255.37 (talk) 23:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Already protected by administrator Elli. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Rock Machine

    Reason:: Conflict of interest editing. This editor who only edits the Rock Machine article admits to being a Rock Machine member here [1] and shows all the signs of treating Wikipedia like a battleground. --A.S. Brown (talk) 23:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Not done. This is better suited for WP:ANI. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    2024 shooting at a Donald Trump rally

    Reason: Requesting extended confirmed protection to counter vandalism. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Duplicate 24.115.255.37 (talk) 23:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that there has been a bunch of vandalism on the article, and we don't tend to block preventatively. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I declined to increase the protection level earlier, but the article started getting more problematic edits from autoconfirmed editors such as [2] and [3] so it seemed appropriate to ECP it under WP:CT/AP. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those edits aren't exactly vandalism. And I do think that six months is quite long all things considered, especially if the only basis for doing so are the sorts of edits that you've cited (which are not optimal, but appear to be good faith). — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't protect the article due to vandalism. As I replied and logged, I protected it under the contentious topics procedure. There were other issues including some vandalism (although that was largely resolved by the semi-protection), but the worst problems seemed to be edits pushing various points of view, edits adding original research, poorly sourced edits, unsourced edits, and some disruptive reverting and removals. I hope this helps explain my reasoning. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Extended confirmed protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Logged as enforcement for WP:CT/AP. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:2024 shooting at a Donald Trump rally

    Temporary semi-protection: A bit of an IAR situation, but could be good until the dust settles, per an IP on the page. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 23:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected by administrator Fuzheado. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 23:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Already protected by administrator Fuzheado. @Fuzheado: Could you please shorten the edit protection duration from indefinite to something shorter, like a week or a month, as per WP:PREEMPTIVE? Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll match the 6 months of the ECP on the article though folks may want to lift it sooner. - Fuzheado | Talk 00:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully, the only way for any non-autoconfirmed user to possibly participate on the page, including in the form of move requests, is to allow them to make edits to the page. I think that a six-month ECP on the article is too long, and also that a six month talk page semiprotection is not proportional to the disruption that has occurred. This is particularly concerning, given that the protecting administrator is is an active participant on the substance of discussions on that talk page; I don't think that we should be making protections of pages where we are actively involved. I would urge Fuzheado to reduce the length of the semi-protection to no more than one week. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Red-tailed hawk: I agree about the duration of the talk page protection. Regarding the article protection, which I made as an uninvolved administrator, I would have used a shorter duration if it seemed remotely viable. Also, six months is a common duration for WP:CT/AP enforcement. Reviewing the 2024 log, there have only been three protections (not counting full protection) shorter than six months and they were all three months long. Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 02:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Battle of Toretsk

    Indefinite Extended confirmed protection: WP:RUSUKR sanction enforcement; obviously falls under the sanctions. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Chaubisi Rajya

    Reason: ongoing vandalism 103.29.114.44 (talk) 02:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. You might consider registering a personal account so you can watchlist the article. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 02:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Pamela Paul

    Reason: Editwarring, especially on a WP:ARBGS article by rando ips.

    Think Confirmed protection and reminder to 1RR rule should be ok. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Kimberly Cheatle

    Reason: Related to current events re: assassination attempt on Donald Trump. Folks have vandalized to blame her for it. JohnHawkinsBois (talk) 03:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected by administrator Joyous!. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Lunacy (album)

    Temporary extended confirmed: Persistent sockpuppetry. Binksternet (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: IP user has now self-reverted. Let's see if it stays that way. Samsara 17:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Valencian

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – some IP addresses making edit wars and adding non-consensual content over the past 2 weeks, many based on their own political views. I restored the consensual aspect of the page as it was in December, before the change of an user with an anonymous IP, and some IP adresses now make an edit war, some repeating the same stuff various times. I suggest a temporary semi-protection of at least 1 week. --TechnicianGB (talk) 14:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. The edits haven't continued for over four days. If it does continue, file another report and we'll look into it while disruption is active and currently going on. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    British School Muscat

    Temporary semi-protection: Article being repeatedly vandalized by students campaigning for the reinstatement of a teacher who, they claim, has disappeared. Their campaign "was a provocative set of posters and slogans used to try and antagonise the management of the school" which they are now using Wikipedia for - Arjayay (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    AirPods

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Seems to be a something trending. Trending topics are the things that most vandals target. TheWinRat (talk) 16:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Alun School

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 17:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected by administrator Jauerback. Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2019 (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

    Queen Mary 2

    Reason: Semi-protection no longer needed as Wikipedia:General sanctions/COVID-19 editing restrictions lifted. 49.150.14.10 (talk) 06:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @El C: as protecting admin. Lectonar (talk) 06:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be noted that any sanctions in place at the time WP:ARBCOVID was passed were automatically converted into discretionary sanctions. That doesn't invalidate this request, however; "legacy" sanctions, to my knowledge, weren't grandfathered in when DS became CTOPs and this falls well outside the one-year enforcement privilege. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unprotected. El_C 00:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Love jihad conspiracy theory

    Reason: Much of the information is false and conveys hatred against Hindus in India Jacieann (talk) 18:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. This is my protection (log), as it happens, under Love Jihad, which is now a redirect. Or at least the WP:ECP upgrade was mine, the indef semi was Oshwah. Anyway, protected and logged as WP:ARBIPA, I find this request falls short and is too vague. You may use the edit request feature though, Jacieann. Thank you. El_C 01:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Daniel Brandt

    Deprotect creation: Daniel Brandt is a musician who meets the notability requirements at WP:MUSIC. He's a member of Brandt Brauer Frick, and released an album on Erased Tapes under his own name, such that he's now notable as a standalone artist. There's copious coverage out there - Allmusic ([4]), Pop Matters ([5]), Pitchfork Media ([6]), The Line of Best Fit ([7]), Clash Music ([8]), LA Weekly ([9]), and XLR8R ([10]) ought to illustrate sufficiently. Chubbles (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Question: Might I suggest creating a draft via WP:AfC and allowing the reviewers there to determine whether the subject meets pertinent WP:notability requirements?   Dlohcierekim talk  23:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've created a userspace draft at User:Chubbles/Daniel Brandt. AFC strikes me as a bit of an odd place to ask permission - it's for first time editors and IPs, and this is not my first article. I'm much more likely to review there (and I have) than to submit there... Also, there is a four- to six-week backlog for reviews, and I'd prefer not to trouble them any more. Chubbles (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, then. Let's see if they remove protection. Dlohcierekim talk  00:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Silly me. Did you ask @WJBscribe:? 2008 was a long time ago. Dlohcierekim talk  00:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not; I will do so now. Chubbles (talk) 00:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment It was protected for good reason. Daniel Brandt caused quite a lot of trouble for Wikipedia. Enigmamsg 00:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I've made a "talk page watcher" post on WJBscribe's talk page, but will repeat the gist of it here. As Enigmaman says, it was salted for good reason. The original subject of the article is not the musician about whom Chubbles is writing. The page is on a couple hundred watchlists, and its resurrection (even if the article subject is completely different) means it will be subject to very intense scrutiny from its first appearance; it would be really worthwhile to ensure that the "new" article really clearly establishes notability and is strongly referenced. Putting on my oversighter hat for a minute now, if the page is unprotected from re-creation and a new article is added, I strongly urge that the previous revisions (which are about a completely different subject) never be undeleted. Risker (talk) 04:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      2,694 deleted edits. I'm afraid to look. The poor servers! At any rate, if this is a new subject, then it's a new subject. TBH, not sure the sourcing is strong enough. I must have been on hiatus-- I don't remember him. Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Risker: If you don't want them accidentally undeleted, best thing is to move them out of the way first. Samsara 06:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Samsara:, easier said than done. The deleted article has an extremely complex history that includes a large number of edits that have been oversighted (using the old oversight tool which is now inoperative). They were then converted to suppression, but to my knowledge we have never moved an article history that includes converted oversighted edits. There's no obvious place to "move them out of the way". This particular article is one of the hidden third rails of Wikipedia. My gut instinct is to suggest to Chubbles that he just create the article at Daniel Brant (musician), where it would receive the normal level of scrutiny for a new article, rather than having a ton of people wondering why this longtime red-linked problem article suddenly turned blue again. I don't think we've yet reached the Overton window on this article title yet. Risker (talk) 07:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not sure you can avoid, in the long run, having a dab page at or redirecting from, Daniel Brandt. It's not a particularly unique name, as was shown. But perhaps a redirect/protection workaround would be permissible. And even if it turns 500 heads, we may have to correct whatever historic "wrongs" were committed, necessary as they may have been or seemed at the time. Samsara 07:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    On the face of it, replacing this deleted article (leaving the deleted edits alone) with an article about someone else seems doable. It may even be desirable. But it would need to be subject to some conditions, i.e. keeping the old content deleted, a consensus that the new article is meets our inclusion criteria and semi-protection / widespread watching of the article to make sure that it is not reverted to its previous subject matter. @Risker: Could we oversight all the old revisions of the article to guard against accidental restoration? WJBscribe (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Noting that, although not the usual practice, I could potentially support creation at Daniel Brant (musician), potentially with a (fully protected) redirect from Daniel Brant. That would prevent quite a lot of mischief. I think disambiguating would be a can of worms. WJBscribe (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Just to be clear in case the above wasn't - my proposed solution would be:
    1. Create Daniel Brandt (musician) with the relevant content
    2. Redirect from Daniel Brandt, then fully protect that redirect and place an edit notice to remind admins not to undelete
    After the above discussion, I think this might be a good solution as only normal sysop actions are needed, and they are reversible. If another notable Daniel Brandt surfaces, admin assistance would be needed to change Daniel Brandt into a dab - probably not too big a deal. Time would tell if Daniel Brandt (musician) would also need some form of protection. Samsara 18:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There is an attraction to that suggestion. My main worry is that Daniel Brandt (musician) would have a high google profile for the name but be a relatively unwatched page. WJBscribe (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been discussing this with fellow oversighters, and we think we may have come up with a solution that will put the "new" article at the right title while preventing any accidental (or even intentional) undeletion of the previous article. @Chubbles:, do you think you're ready to have the draft article moved to mainspace? Keep in mind it will have much more scrutiny than usual for a new article. Let me know directly, because our solution requires an oversighter to complete. Risker (talk) 20:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for all your comments on this - what an odd predicament this all seems to be. I (of course) have no need for the previous pages to ever return from deletion or suppression, since the deleted article was about someone else (about whom I have zero interest). If the simplest solution is just to create the article at Daniel Brandt (musician) and pipe any relevant internal links there, I'm happy to avoid any unnecessary drama. In the long term, though...you're right that this probably isn't going to be the only notable Daniel Brandt in the world. I'd prefer a solution that doesn't result in a fury of people trying to get my article deleted merely because the man's name is Daniel Brandt. I think that, if his name were Düsseldorf Fürstenberger, the question of his notability would be uncontroversial (he'd survive an AfD with the current sourcing if the participants were the usual AfD junkies and music-interested contributors), but it'd be nice to have some support from people with clout who are willing to argue that this musician's notability should be judged irrespective of his onomastic resemblance to an article nobody wants to see return. Chubbles (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think there's any risk of the article getting shot down when it's clearly about a different person. If anything, the ghosts in the walls might come and oppose deletion, in misguided hopes that it is the same person or the article could be subtly tweaked to suddenly be about the same person. Anybody with their hat on will realise the other Brandt wouldn't have the time for a musical career. Anyway, @Risker:, I'm wondering whether, given we've been discussing here at length, the rest of us can be let in on your super secret oversighters' master plan, ;) given that this is not the typical controversial case and it's already out in the open anyway. Thanks. Samsara 20:49, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm perhaps not as sanguine as you, Samsara, about the degree of scrutiny the new article will have, although even I think the subject is probably notable enough for an article, and I've got a reputation for being very strict in my notability interpretations. Who knows, it might actually do the article some good, and there would be a certain cachet in having one's new article improved by a bunch of really experienced editors. We have done some back-room testing to see what happens when pages with converted oversight edits that are mixed in with regular deleted edits are moved, and it seems to work okay when done by an oversighter. (There are some interesting historical notes about this, but this is the wrong discussion for them.) The plan will result in the new draft being at the Daniel Brandt title, with previous edits/talk page edits moved elsewhere, re-deleted with deletion-suppression, and no redirects to anything anywhere. So once Chubbles confirms that he's ready to go, I'll be happy to take the steps, which will only take a few minutes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Risker (talk • contribs) 21:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC) Thank you. Risker (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Alright, well...I've just added cats and a few more sources; this article has more sources than 90% of the music articles I've had kept at AfD, so I hope it's not too much of an uphill battle. If you're ready, then I guess we should go for it. Chubbles (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • Okay, @Chubbles:, I'll start working on this now. There's a lot of stuff to move around (deleted archives and so on) and it's taking me some time to track everything down, but it will be done before I log off for the night. The very last step will be moving your draft into the article space, so once you see that happen, you'll know we're "live". I'm sure several of the people who've participated in this discussion (myself included) will help to keep an eye on things. Risker (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • And...this request is now complete. The draft page has been moved to Daniel Brandt after everything else was moved to another name. There are no redirects. Risker (talk) 06:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks everyone! Chubbles (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Samsara 17:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Miss Universe 2019

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content – Already protected article, but inexperienced editors are still adding unsourced information or vandalizing the article on the daily. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 05:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for edits to a protected page

    Further information: Wikipedia:Edit requests
    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


    Talk:2024 shooting at a Donald Trump rally

    At Talk:2024 shooting at a Donald Trump rally#Requested move 13 July 2024, please add the following opinion

    *Oppose it is WP:TOOSOON to determine if it was an attempted assassination or not. We should absolutely not attempt to gun on this and frankly, the article was created too early as it is. Downerr2937 (talk) 00:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)}}[reply]

    Create a level 3 header with a link to the article in question, then a {{Pagelinks}} template and then the reason. It looks like this: Example (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) your request here. ~~~~

    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=882226097"