Wikipedia:Requests for page protection: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Requesting semi-protection of John Logie Baird. (TW)
Line 193: Line 193:
* {{pagelinks|Mahfiruz Hatice Sultan}}
* {{pagelinks|Mahfiruz Hatice Sultan}}
'''Semi-protection:''' Since months these articles have been the targets of some unending disruptive editing by IPs, usually claiming unsourced ancestries frequently based on source falsification (changing the meaning of sourced content without changing or challenging the source).--[[User:Phso2|Phso2]] ([[User talk:Phso2|talk]]) 18:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
'''Semi-protection:''' Since months these articles have been the targets of some unending disruptive editing by IPs, usually claiming unsourced ancestries frequently based on source falsification (changing the meaning of sourced content without changing or challenging the source).--[[User:Phso2|Phso2]] ([[User talk:Phso2|talk]]) 18:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

=== [[:John Logie Baird]] ===
* {{pagelinks|John Logie Baird}}

'''Semi-protection:''' Persistent vandalism – Request pending change be moved to semiprot. Heavy vandalism due to subject being featured by Google today. -- [[User:Ferret|ferret]] ([[User_talk:Ferret|talk]]) 19:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


==Current requests for reduction in protection level==
==Current requests for reduction in protection level==

Revision as of 19:06, 26 January 2016


"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.

    Ruhollah Khomeini

    Temporary protection: Persistent disruptive editing, addition of unsourced bogus/hoaxes, ignoring WP:BRD, massive unsuited changes to the lede (making it 2x longer), as well as ignoring the talk page both on the article, as well as on his own page.[1]-[2]. Clearly not here to have a fruitful discussion regarding his unsuited changes. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:LouisAragon clearly has a conflict of interest. They revert by claiming "Unsourced" contents such as "In 1982, there was an attempted military coup against Khomeini" which was sourced to highly reliable NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/1982/06/28/world/iran-says-an-attempted-coup-by-army-group-was-foiled.html) [3]. Also ignorned/ removed warning on their talkpage [4]--Dolly Cao (talk) 02:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Kshama Sawant

    Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – Please revert to [5] and lock from further BLP violations. Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      • Instead of removing the controversial assertions about a living person, the editors are going back and forth, tagging the claims with {{disputed-inline}}, instead of removing them until consensus is reached, in violation of WP:BLP and WP:NOCONSENSUS. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Johann Sebastian Bach

    Temporary Full Page Protection (5-days): Persistent disruptive editing, third time, on Bach article and Talk page by User:Francis Schonken. A new RfC is currently open at Johann Sebastian Bach with 4-5 editors in support of changes with citations added to the proposed text in the previous RfC, and two editors Opposed User:Martindale and User:Francis Schonken. One of the editors, User:Francis has returned to edit warring on the Talk page despite warning from User:Softlavender to follow RfC policy and guideline. In addition, two previous Full page protection from User:Ymblanter and User:MusikA previously issued for User:Francis to stop edit warring and to encourage him to participate in the open RfC have been ignored. Instead, User:Francis is now disruptively editing the RfC in order to deflect any new editors from participating. Virtually all new editors have been deflected over the week-end from participation due to the disruptive editing by User:Francis. I have returned the RfC to normal format and requested that editor comments be placed in the Comment Section of the RfC following the Support-Oppose section but User:Francis ignores this and reverts it. User:Francis is apparently now pretending to be the originator and author of the RfC by edit warring.

    Request here is made for temporary Full Page Protection for the article for 5-days and a cautionary warning to User:Francis to follow RfC guidelines and policies since a preliminary warning was already made by User:Softlaverder to User:Francis concerning this matter. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Automated comment: A request for protection/unprotection for one or more pages in this request was recently made, and was denied at some point within the last 8 days.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 18:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Judea

    Indefinite semi-protection: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_3#500.2F30. nableezy - 19:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC) 19:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Odin

    Temporary semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. A wave of IP editors (186.214.109.194; 93.221.243.65; 180.244.47.144; 177.133.174.67; 93.221.213.89; 84.183.99.216; 199.185.67.239; 84.183.97.124; 84.139.123.154; 84.139.114.106; 219.89.19.22; 84.139.119.116) has kept emerging and making the same controversial edits over and over again. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Jdcomix

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – User keeps vandalizing my talk page. Jdcomix (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Bain family murders

    Temporary semi-protection: This was semi protected by Gadfium because lots of SPA's were adding poorly sourced content. This has started again so will an admin please consider restoring semi protection. Note it has also been full protected due to edit warring. AIRcorn (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Sophia Abrahão discography

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – This seems to be a target for User:ArthurRebelnatico socks to get auto confirmed and be able to edit semi-protected pages related to Sophia Abrahão. Steel1943 (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:The Piper at the Gates of Dawn

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Harassment against me from a persistent vandal who usually targets Millennials and Generation X, and who has recently vandalized the user page of User:Donner60. Binksternet (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Binksternet you or someone using your account apparently removed my comment on The Piper at the Gates of Dawn talk page three times -- please don't do that again. As you know, any editor can leave a comment on a talk page and you can't remove talk page comments from other editors --- ever. This is according to Wikipedia policy. Thank you. 2606:6000:610A:9000:9DF6:CC8D:592B:1AE (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Binksternet

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – IP-hopping LTA vandal targeting me. Binksternet (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    This isn't needed. I requested that you don't remove my comments from The Piper at the Gates of Dawn talk page (see above). That's a legitimate request to leave on YOUR talk page. The other item I left on your talk page was a warning to stop edit warring which you clearly did at The Piper at the Gates of Dawn talk page by removing my comments there three times. Thank you. 2606:6000:610A:9000:9DF6:CC8D:592B:1AE (talk) 00:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Millionaire

    Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Major and persistent vandalism. SirLagsalott (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Nothing in past 5 days —GFOLEY FOUR!— 14:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Dystopia (Megadeth album)

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Certains users remove parts of the article for no apparent reason. LordRapture (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Shrek The Musical

    Semi-protection: Unconstructive edits by several different IPs over the course of today (January 25th); semi-protection should sort it out.

    Entranced98 (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Looks like it was only two users vandalizing and they've stopped. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 14:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Tekken 7

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Since a certain editor keeps doing a logged out revert I think it's better to protect this page. Krystaleen 01:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Deadpool (film)

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Honor society

    Semi-protection: Anonymous IP addresses are repeatedly using this page to advertise. See 71.48.54.13 in particular. Ninedotnine (talk) 04:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The X-Files (miniseries)

    Semi-protection: There's been odd cases of vandalism (example), as well as a high level of disruptive IP editing. Several other editors and I have discussed on the article's talk page what to call this event series, and a consensus was met that this would be referred to as a 'miniseries'. But for the past two days, IPs have been dropping in and changing the contents of the article so that it says 'season' without even considering the talk page discussion (example). Here's another very disruptive edit that shows the IP's unfamiliarity with Wikipedia's process.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Arundavapuram

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. tamil 05:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

    • Automated comment: A request for protection/unprotection for one or more pages in this request was recently made, and was denied at some point within the last 8 days.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 05:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined, Not vandalism, and please don't assert ownership of articles. Furthermore, semi-protection would do nothing because everyone that's edited it are autoconfirmed. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 14:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Triple J Hottest 100

    Temporary Semi-protection: Article has been vandalised by a number of unregistered users throughout the day. Slabba (talk) 05:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Automated comment: One or more pages in this request appear to already be protected. Please confirm.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 09:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Zootopia

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content – Three Five additions of fake casting details by different IP addresses in the past twelve hours, including two three identical additions from different IPs. McGeddon (talk) 09:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Concur: I came to this page to request semi-protection for reasons described above, and found a request has already been submitted. mwalimu59 (talk) 15:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Lists of South Korean idol groups

    Full protection: I would like to reopen this request because persistent vandalism/disruptive editing and edit warring ever since the creation of these pages. The pages in question was originally by agreed by consensus that it would be a bullet-ed list on each page without the unnecessary information overload. Every time someone tries to go back to it, someone turns the pages back into a table layout. Further more, even with the pages as tables and with information overload there is always someone edit warring with information both minor edits and major edits. I'm requesting that the pages should be returned to their original bullet-ed list state. Most of these idol groups aren't particularly notable and without a page of their own in the English Wikipedia. Could we have it so that these pages are highly protected in some way? Alicia leo86 (talk) 11:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Automated comment: A request for protection/unprotection for one or more pages in this request was recently made, and was denied at some point within the last 8 days.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 11:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll let someone else handle it, but like I said to Alicia leo86 on my talk page: The last revert I see on the 2000s is on January 18...January 11 for 2010s...October 28 for 1990s. DOesn't seem too disruptive to me. only (talk) 11:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Only, I do apologize for reopening the request. However, it comes off highly disruptive when people are constantly editing the pages and removing information and links. I might be incredibly bias here but not only is it disruptive, it is highly annoying to people who are trying to have some sort of consistency to these pages. These pages never remain consistent. Much of this information is rather unnecessary and not notable. Information like Gender, Agency, Number of Members, Sub-units, Japanese Debut date, when they disbanded and other information tidbits can be easily found in their wikipedia pages which is only one click away. Having it in a table is a sure fire way for constant disruptive editing. Alicia leo86 (talk) 11:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Then put it in bullet form. Protection isn't needed to change the form of it. two of the articles have been in table form since October. One since December. only (talk) 11:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    They'll only change it back. K-pop fans seem obsessed with the use of tables in these sorts of articles. Alicia leo86 (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Beaumont children disappearance

    Semi-protection: The 50th anniversary of the disappearance has triggered vandalism. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Out of 3 recent IP edits, 2 look to be in good faith. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 15:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Transportes Aéreos da Índia Portuguesa

    Semi-protection: Continous reversion by IP range 1.39.* beginning from 3 Jan 2016. The Discoverer (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Kill 'Em All

    Semi-protection: I don't know if it really is a problem or some kind of mockery, but various IPs (from India, Brazil, US, Iran...) have been erroneously and persistently changing the album's personnel in the last two years. The page was protected for three months before, but the vandalism seem to be still ongoing.--Retrohead (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Pending-changes protected for a period of six months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Katietalk 16:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Mechanical television

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Google Doodle related vandalism. Safiel (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Alexandre Lacazette

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – No transfer of player, but media speculation is driving premature edits. Requesting 2 weeks. Shreerajtheauthor (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Miley Cyrus & Her Dead Petz

    Temporary semi-protection: Increasing levels of IP vandalism, likely due to the controversial nature of topics surrounding Cyrus herself. The article is being worked on to become a GA candidate, and excessive vandalism that surpasses good faith edits would compromise its stability. WikiRedactor (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Crusades

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism and POV editing, including most recent addition of copyright violations from an unacceptable source. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Kumoh National Institute of Technology

    Semi-protection: Persistent attempts over time by IP editors who either add copvio content or promotional content. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Water cycle

    Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. CLCStudent (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JamieTheGenius/sandbox

    Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. CLCStudent (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Suffragette

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Ideological edit warring (womens' rights / feminism) . Stuartyeates (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Ottoman concubines

    Semi-protection: Since months these articles have been the targets of some unending disruptive editing by IPs, usually claiming unsourced ancestries frequently based on source falsification (changing the meaning of sourced content without changing or challenging the source).--Phso2 (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    John Logie Baird

    Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Request pending change be moved to semiprot. Heavy vandalism due to subject being featured by Google today. -- ferret (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2016 (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.

    Amy-Leigh Hickman

    Unprotection: The page was blocked in 2010 as the actress was barely notable. However, the actress since then has appeared in much more and I would like to do an article. I have asked once before, but I got ignored. Thanks. Grangehilllover (talk) 23:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you have a draft prepared? tutterMouse (talk) 10:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, Yes. I'm almost done. Thanks. Grangehilllover (talk) 13:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    When you've completed it, make an article in userspace or within the Draft namespace so an admin can move it into mainspace. tutterMouse (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi,

    I'm really not understanding it as these articles are confusing. Can the page not be just unprotected? Grangehilllover (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    No, usually if you want a page unprotected because you feel the subject is now notable then a draft article is helpful to get it unprotected as then at least you're showing evidence that an article is viable and that it'll pass notability guidelines. If the processes I showed you are too complex to understand then the article wizard tool will also help. tutterMouse (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi,

    I've submitted an edit request if that's any good. Grangehilllover (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    It won't be, you've already got one request here. tutterMouse (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll give you the super easiest way to put your draft article up so we can see it; click on this link in red, copypaste your article into the window and hit save page like any page you'd create. You shouldn't need to put a link to it here but you may want to so a passing admin can see it. tutterMouse (talk) 07:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi,

    That was much easier, thanks! I've done it. Grangehilllover (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Grangehilllover: My strong advice is that you take this draft through Articles for creation (AfC) – they will unsalt this page for you if they approve it. (If you want, I can put an AfC template at the top of the draft for you.) On my end, I don't think your sourcing is quite strong enough yet to take this draft into mainspace yet... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    ResellerRatings

    Unprotection: ResellerRatings factual content is consistently removed by an individual associated with the company, then protection requests are filed to prevent that information from appearing in the article. Any factual, well sourced, encyclopedic content added by any user which casts any type of unfavorable light on this business is consistently removed, then protection requests are filed to keep the information out of the article for 6 months. The same user, Techimo, who likely has an affiliation with the organization as the only other article he's ever contributed is the one he started about the company's founder (Scott Wainner), is responsible for this manipulation.

    The latest revisions were quite neutral, well sourced from peer review sites such as the Better Business Bureau, SiteJabber, and Truspilot, as well as industry news magazine, Internet Retailer Magazine, a former division of Thomson Reuters. These are neutral sources with no axe to grind. Criticisms were listed as well as the steps ResellerRatings took to address them. That is about as neutral as it gets. All of ResellerRatings' peers such as TrustPilot, Angie's List, and the Better Business Bureau have similar "Criticism" sections. Why is ResellerRatings' article allowed to be any different?

    The consistent citing of "non neutral point of view" by user Techimo and his various IP's is false, disruptive, and misleading. I request that protection be removed, the article be reverted to the https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ResellerRatings&oldid=701384529 revision, and for the protection to be added back for a 6 month period, to prevent Techimo from removing factual content and abusing Wikipedia protection. ZeroShadows (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Counter Argument to Unprotection: ZeroShadows is defending content contributed to the ResellerRatings page by 71.235.154.73, an edit warring IP who posted the same (or versions of) critical attacks (citing every negative, and not reliable, hearsay, blog, and user generated forum posting source he could locate) no less than 103 times in December 2014 in an eager effort to attack the ResellerRatings page with a non-NPOV agenda, which also included sources which were not reliable. This user then began another tirade of posts under the the username NotTechimo, for which he was blocked from Wikipedia for impersonating (me) by Mr._Stradivarius. The edit war continued from 32.211.179.232, so the ResellerRatings page was protected for 6 months until August 2015 by CambridgeBayWeather.

    Now, after a new round of critical, non-NPOV, and biased edits to the ResellerRatings page by the same edit warring IP 71.235.154.73 which began on January 21, 2016, within hours, ZeroShadows also contributed several edits to the ResellerRatings and Better Business Bureau pages, and he is now here asking you to allow his (or his friend's) biased agenda and attack against this page to be allowed to persist. There is documentation on the web that exists proving that 71.235.154.73 has a continuing financial interest in damaging the ResellerRatings page and an axe to grind, but in the interest of upholding Wikipedia's outing policy, that won't be posted here. However, ignoring that, and on the sole basis that 71.235.154.73 engaged in a 100+ edit warring attack, impersonated me by creating the NotTechimo account, and got blocked by two admins, I would respectfully request that you deny this user the ability to continue his pattern of abuse. Techimo (talk) 08:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Response: You've made my point in your response, citing the same "non-NPOV" argument you make for every single edit to the article made by anyone, but yourself. The history of the article speaks for itself as you've been at this since the inception of the article (which you started). Calling the Better Business Bureau, Angie's List, Trustpilot, Sitejabber, and Thomson Reuters "negative, and not reliable, hearsay, blog, and user generated forum posting source(s)" is laughable. You obviously have a vested interest in ResellerRatings, are not an impartial user, and most definitely have a conflict of interest. These sources are impartial and have no axe to grind. The data that was included, regardless of who included it, was neutral, encyclopedic, and in the spirit of Wikipedia. Your manipulation of the protection system and prevention of factual information from appearing in the article needs to end. ZeroShadows (talk) 09:18, 26 January 2016 (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.

    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=701814313"