Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by UninvitedCompany (talk | contribs) at 20:07, 13 May 2004 (=Current requests= -Credit card, done). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Communitypage This page is for requesting that a page be protected or unprotected.

See Wikipedia:Protection policy for details on the purpose of protecting pages and the guidelines concerning page protection. If you would like to request a page be protected; please list it (and the date) below, with the reason that it needs protecting.

Please remove pages once they have been protected; or once the requestee no longer wishes for them to have protected status.

This is not the place to discuss or dispute articles. Add new requests at the top.

Current requests

  • Unprotect Augusto Pinochet - See Talk:Augusto Pinochet. Veriverily isn't explaining his objections to text he keeps reverting over and over again. 172 03:59, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • The page is already protected. Is this a request for unprotection? --Michael Snow 14:37, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, please unprotect this page. 172 21:17, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, but in spite of your efforts I don't think the discussion has reached enough of a resolution right now to avoid a resumption of the revert war as soon as the page is unprotected. --Michael Snow 21:54, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
          • Veriverily only chooses to lodge personal attacks against me as long as he manages to censor any facts that he feels might reflect negatively on the U.S. by means of a page protection. There cannot be a discussion unless the page protection is lifted. If we have to wait for Veriverily, the page might as well be protected permanently. 172 22:51, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
          • Refer to the large number of people who have put effort into this article - Ed Poor, Cadr, Cantus, Eloquence - while 172 seeks to sabotage our efforts at working together and impose his own agenda. The Talk pages are available, so one can see 172 is lying. Although I have aired my frustration with 172 several times there, the issues have also been much discussed by me and others (i.e., "only" yeah right). As Cadr said on this very page [1], "Agree with VV. A lot of constructive work was being done on the page; the problems are almost enitrely down to the user he mentions." (in ref to 172) As soon as the protection is off, 172 will continue his activities. -- VV

VV is obviously trying to *Janez Drnovsek and Milan Kucan because Romanm and User:GeneralPatton keep deleting info that they don`t like!--Avala 10:03, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation of the article is in it's introduction; the G* word has been used in accord with the Yale University study integral to the article; the title of the country in question is the common English name (West Papua) as found on the titles and texts of most of the external reports listed. The two name changes were done without prior discussion and with dis-reguard to the continuing work on the article resulting in the current multiple versions of content. Reading Papua_(disambiguation) before Wik reverts it may also be useful reading.Daeron 18:07, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Please do not do this. There is a general consensus that the article should not be at West Papuan Genocide. john 18:18, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Wik and Mr John Kenney are the persons in dispute with myself and Tannin concerning West Papua, Mr Kenney again states his opinion as being facts, no such concensus was ever made. Tannin asked if the G* was being used with due care. On the West Papua Talk page, I appreciate that John has finally concurred that 'West Papua' is a english name for the; I am disappointed that he then indicates his intention to keep the article at 'Papua_(Indonesian_province)' instead of allowing it to be returned to its common english name where it has peacefully existed for over two years before he and Wik came to it. While people may feel John has done a great service for the Wikipedia in renaming dozens if not hundreds of articles to new 'correct' names, it would be nice if he discussed these moves first. As to Wik's original objection and reverting of 'West Papua'; this was the percise subject I raised the in Manual of Style where the majority seem to concur with my thought on the subject.Daeron 06:34, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

See also

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=3568302"