Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 192.30.202.11 (talk) at 22:02, 19 January 2006 (→‎{{article|Chaim Weizmann}}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

This page is for requesting that a page, image or template be full protected, semi-protected or unprotected, including page-move protection.

If you would like to request a page be protected or unprotected, please list it (and sign the request) at the TOP of the current requests section below, with the reason that it needs protecting or unprotecting. Also, make sure you specify whether you want the page to be full protected or semi protected. Before you do so, however, consult Wikipedia:Protection policy for details on the purpose of protecting pages and the guidelines concerning page protection. Wikipedia:Semi-protection is the policy that covers semi-protection of heavily vandalised pages.

Only consider protection as an option when it is necessary in order to resolve your problem, and when the only solution that will assist in the solution of the problem is protection.

Generally, full page protection is to stop edit warring or severe vandalism. Semi protection is only for vandalism. Full protection is also used on templates that are frequently used and not in need of frequent edits (this includes most editorial templates; see Wikipedia:High-risk templates).

After a page has been protected, it is listed on Wikipedia:Protected page with a short description indicating why it was protected. Further discussion should take place on the Talk page of the article. Admins do not revert back to previous versions of the page, except to get rid of vandalism.

{{Editprotected}} can be used to request edits to protected pages as an alternative to requests for page unprotection.

This is not the place to discuss or dispute articles, users, or policies.

If the entry is being used for edit-warring or content disputes or contains personal attacks or uncivil comments, or any other unrelated discussion, it will be removed from this page immediately.

Here is the log page if users want to look up whether or not pages have been protected.

Administrators: When you have fullfilled or rejected a request, please note your actions (or reasons for not acting) and, optionally, remove the request, leaving a note on the talk page of the article and/or on the talk page of the user(s) requesting protection might be good, as well.


Current requests for protection

Please place new requests at the top. and use {{article|ARTICLE NAME}} when listing a page here, where ARTICLE NAME is the article or page you wish to be protected.

Global Warming and Climate Change

Please semi-protect:

because they both have many rvv'ed IP# edits in their recent histories. Thank you. --James S. 20:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have semi protected Global Warming because there has been much vandalism there. Climate change has only been vandalized once in the last few days so I have not protected it. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 21:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am only talking about the Philadelphia County category, not the single county article.

Wikipedia lists Philadelphia as a consolidated city-county,

It seems to me that Wikipedia’s standard practice to have only a single category for conterminous zones.

I am not saying that the articles need to be merged. The Philadelphia County article should remain separate as there was a separate history until 1854. In this case, I think the articles are different than San Francisco County, California which redirects to San Francisco, California; Nantucket County, Massachusetts which redirects to Nantucket, Massachusetts; Kings County, New York which redirects to Brooklyn. evrik 16:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • 01:55, 15 January 2006 HappyCamper unprotected Category:Municipalities in Philadelphia County prior to the Act of Consolidation, 1854 (repeated reversion participants all blocked; not necessary to protect page)
  • 01:55, 15 January 2006 HappyCamper unprotected Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania (repeated reversion participants all blocked; not necessary to protect page)
  • 01:55, 15 January 2006 HappyCamper unprotected Category:Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania (repeated reversion participants all blocked; not necessary to protect page)
  • 01:30, 15 January 2006 HappyCamper protected Category:Municipalities in Philadelphia County prior to the Act of Consolidation, 1854 (long term multiple reversions [edit=sysop:move=sysop])
  • 01:29, 15 January 2006 HappyCamper protected Category:Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania (long term multiple reversions [edit=sysop:move=sysop])
  • 01:08, 15 January 2006 HappyCamper protected Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania (long term reversions on page - please see talk [edit=sysop:move=sysop])

Please semi-protect; page turning into hard-to-sort-out mess with partial vandalism reverts. Lambiam 14:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked User:Mikepalmer15 and reverted the article to an older version. Since this seems to be an attack by one person, I don't think semi-protection is necessary. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please semi-protect this page, people are vandalizing it by the minute. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semiprotected. --BorgQueen 11:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Featured article is only SP or FP for 10-15 minutes at a time. As it says in the protection policy, it is best to not protect articles linked from the main page. I know it's a pain, but it's the policy. *shrug* Besides, the main vandal was blocked, it looks like. Otherwise, what I see is pretty low for the FA. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is an edit war going on. User:Irpen persistently removes the names of Ukrainian states from the section Times of revolutionary unrest, whyle all other sides of the conflict are listed proparly. He does not accept two possible ways to solve the dispute (either list all sides or none). He also removed mentioning of thefamous Independence Square (Maidan Nezalezhnosti) from the leading paragraph. To avoid a further editing war, I ask to protect the page until the dispute is solved.--AndriyK 09:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protected. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's another slander by a known disruptor of Wikipedia. The reasoning behind each of two points AndriyK is unhappy about a carefully explained at talk. Not being able to respond in any material way, he requested the protection just to cause some annoyance if he can't have the article his way. It would be a good idea for whoever is throwing a protect template to check whether there is any edit war at all first. Making such fast-hand decisions is nothing but encouragement to trolls who use request for protection, request for checkuser and other administrative pages frivolously. --Irpen 18:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that another user (User:Oleh Petriv), disagrees with Irpen's version as well. He is not a "known disruptor of Wikipedia" as myself ;). I requested the protection to avoid diruption and politization. All usefull changes can be proposed on the talk (sub)page.--AndriyK 19:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is this one persistent anon user who removes COA of Abkhasia and South Ossetia. S/he left me a message on my talk page here. His/her IP is always changing, so I suggest semiprotection till that person understands that all complaints about the list should go to the talk page of List of sovereign states. Renata 07:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semiprotection applied. howcheng {chat} 07:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A revert war between new editors. Protection may be helpful to bring the sides to the talk page, better than 3RR blocking would do. I expect it would not have to stay protected for long. -Will Beback 04:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protected. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, -Will Beback 05:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article has suffred a lot of recent vandalism; go back in the history and the last 15 edits or so are just vandalism and reverts. Remember that this is a prominent page and a favorite of vandals. I am requesting that it be semi-protected so these anons can't mess it up while not hindering any revisions made by well-meaning users.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 02:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. SP. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same anon as below. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 02:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No for now. Not as bad as the SpongeBob situation. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again attacked by a very annoying proxy IP anon who keeps adding hoax episodes and ugly formatting. He has no desire to cooperate with other editors or respect Wikipedia's rules, and semi-protection is the only way to stop him. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 02:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protected. Again. 3rd go round. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keeps getting hit by someone with annoying comments like "...is the one true faith." Has created multiple sockpuppets and seems to refuse to stop or talk. Semi or full requested. 68.39.174.238 00:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jkelly protected it. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotected now. Jkelly 17:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is heavily vandalised and edited by POV-pushers and Girls Aloud-bashers, needs protection now. Semi-protection won't work on such a controversial article as this, it needs full protection now! --Sexyschoolgirl 17:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, should be protected to stop edit warring. A very controversial article!! --Eastrising 17:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the Mark Chapman and Scott Mills vandalism below, vandalism is going on pretty much all pages to with radio 1; suggest that these are semi protected for a couple of hours, reverting to any edits before half 4. Notably, Edith Bowman has been target, but they're all worth checking Robdurbar 17:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be hugely pre-emptive, which WP:SEMI is absolutely clear about not doing. This article has received 19 edits in the last three years. I cannot see any reason to sprotect this article at the present moment. -Splashtalk 17:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I looked at all the radio 1 links and only see a few highly scattered edits. Please read WP:PP or WP:SEMI before making requests here. Thanks.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 17:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but if you read my request its not that page in paticular that I want; it was just quicker than me listing Chris Moyles The Chris Moyles Show JK and Joel Colin Murray Edith Bowman and the many others that have all had dozens of vandlous edits in the last half hour. I didn't want to flood this page with all these requests Robdurbar 17:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You really need to be more clear when you post here. Still many of these have little vandalism. I did semi-pro JK and Joel however.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 17:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies; I do realise that I should have linked to BBC Radio 1 instead. I do appreciate the need for accuracy, but the vandalism was/is happening so quickly. The Scott Mills Show could still do with protection Robdurbar 17:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, its been done anyway Robdurbar 17:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way that we are going to protect every single article related to Radio 1 just because they're getting a bit of vandalism. We can handle it. It's not big deal. Only those that are suffering beyond the call of duty need protection. Head over to #wikipedia-en-vandalism and add them all to the watchlist there, pick up a rollback script and WP:CDVF along the way, and don't panic. Protection is not a knee-jerk "oh no, anons!" tool. -Splashtalk 17:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Splash. Those that were getting vandalised by anons several times a minute have been semi protected. Radio 1 has not been edited since November 30. Protection of any form should only be used to stop ongoing problems. --GraemeL (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No its a tool that is meant to stop vandalsim. Thankfully some other administers have used this tool on the relevant pages. Next time theres this sort of vandalism Ill just list 20 different pages, then? Robdurbar 17:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please. Or take the advice in my previous message. -Splashtalk 17:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A little bit of background. Today live on radio 1 Scott Mills mentioned that people could edit pages on wikipedia and encouraged people to add funny comments to his and other radio DJ's pages. Hopefully a few days of full protection will be enough to deter the vandles. I've emailed scott to explain some of situation. --Salix alba (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean semi-protection? I can't think of a reason to go straight to full protect, unless we see vandalism from established users with proliferating socks. Blocks will deal with them. -Splashtalk 18:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just had a reply back from Scott 

To be honest, we didn't tell people to- they had done already and as a
result more people did it.

Sorry about that.

Scott

Yes semi-protect is fine, there were a few bits of vandalism by registered users. All seems quite now. --Salix alba (talk) 19:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The revert war have agained resumed. This article was refed to arbcom but they have not yet accepted the case. Please protect. Zeq 16:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need not protect so soon. With 11 days of no editing, and only a handful today, lets wait before protecting.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 17:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the page should not be re-protected. Examination of the edit history shows that Zeq himself made the first change to the page after it was unprotected, a massive revert including deletions of large sections of text. All of his changes were discussed on the Talk page under the heading "The Current Impasse" and Zeq has not responded to the last comments made there. What he's doing now is a transparent attempt to circumvent that discussion by taking a chance that the page gets locked on "his" version this time. 00:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

This article is undergoing an edit war by a user inserting highly disputed material and then reverting changes when questioned about the sources. The user in question, User:Tt1 has also been using a host of sockpuppets to bypass the 3 revert rule. A page protection is needed at this point as Tt1 does not appear to be backing down and is reinserting material over and over again which is being questioned (and reverted) by at least two other users. -Husnock 16:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be an edit war. I am protecting this one for now.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 16:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, seems another admin blocked for 3RR, so protection is not needed.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 16:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Tt1 is logging on under several different anon IPs to avoid the 3 revert rule and evade blocks. A protection may still be needed. -Husnock 16:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FOLLOWUP: We need a page protection now. User Tt1 is using several different IP addresses (one of which has been blocked for 3 revert rule violation) and is now logged right back on continueing as normal inserting disputed edits. He is now on about the 6th or 7th revert. Someone please revert these changes and protect the page. It is getting to be a nasty edit war. -Husnock 18:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked his two 80.x IPs for 3RR.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 18:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SP in place. howcheng {chat} 18:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They may not be needed with the block. Not sure.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 18:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a particularly bad case of someone avoiding a block, and SP is entirely reasonable in this, targetted, case. However, note that as soon as his 3RR block expires, it becomes a content dispute, and then full protection is necessary. Don't use sprotect unless he's continually editing with socks. If he is editing with socks, then sprotect does not limit his ability to edit with his original account. -Splashtalk 18:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Tt1 and suspected sock User:Roitr have been blocked indefinitely for continually evading 3RR. I've also put in a CheckUser request to confirm. howcheng {chat} 20:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is becoming a warfield, where Deng, who Im sure has good intentions, is pushing his POV and bias, and is also presenting figures which are way off the documented world war ii casualties on that page. He is also using personal attacks and doesnt partake in civilised discussion, which all the more justifies protection. Ksenon 13:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be one user inserting POV, although I don't yet suspect trolling. If he doesn't give up I will protect.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 16:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to protect. This has become a pretty nasty edit war. I reverted to Ksenon's version before I protected because I'm afraid if I didn't, no discussion would take place since it is User:DengXiaoPing who is trying to add the disputed material. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, if any admin objects to me reverting to a previous version, feel free to overrule me. I know that usually, I am deadset against such things, but I feel like if I didn't do it, that the protection would be pointless. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with user KSenon. I have commented on user Deng's edits below in the request to unprotect section. I strongly endorse page protection for now. Please note that multiple editors are continually reverting Deng's nearly-identical edits. DMorpheus 14:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Test eastern front i made this one maybe you could use that one it it should be noted that ksenon allways removed any facts about german losses or axis losses als that he would allways remove any mention of german atrocities but add multipel facts about soviet and and this is not the first article he has done that he has done it in many other articles if anyone would look on his discussion page it would be clear to see aslo DMorpheus shares ksenon views about the jews so just because two people say the holocaust didnt happen dosent make it true and just because i say it happened dosent make it untrue

The problem with ksenon is that he removes so much information about everything for example he would allways remove the fact that sweden produced 2/3 of the axis powers iron-ore and only in the last edit did he keep it also he would remove any mention about soviets who fought FOR the axis and he would also remove any mention about how much leand lease was given each year He would remove the fact that Soviet production was seariously damged by the german invasion and would gain huge deposits of raw materials but at the same time the soviets were able to produce vast amount of materials

If you add up all the things he would remove and what otherpeople wrote on his discussion page you can clearly see that he has a very biass view

Deng 19-01-06 16.30 CET

This is not the place to argue the mertis of an article or to report other users for inappropriate actions. The page has been protected for now. I would recommend visiting the talk page and working things out. -Husnock 15:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the material is now at Talk:Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)/Proposed, which is where it should be. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 15:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just blocked Deng for 90 minutes for continued personal attacks and disruption. Hopefully he'll come back a bit calmer. I have 0 tolerance for users who keep referring to other (legit) users as "vandals" despite warnings. Anyway, the page is protected. This can probably be removed from here. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 16:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


First I am the only one in this argument who have stated sources and those are

"Russia's War" by Prof. Richard Overy tables are found on pages 155, 178 and 238

"Campagins of World War 2 Day by Day" written by Chris Bishop And Chris Mcnab lists of causlties and production nummbers can be found of pages 244-252

"Barberossa" by Alan Clark

second of all the whole problem with this matter is that ksenon would just remove stuff because he didnt like the facts and It should also be noted that I made all the graphs or almost all of them the first one which i later moddified was made by someone else but i provided the nummbers and the sources

If someone would please just go here User talk:Ksenon you will see that this person has done the same thing on many pages, removed facts just like that and not stated any sources

And the test page was made by ME i hope no one thinks that Woohookitty did it because i did it, but i named mine test eastern front but he deleted that one and moved it here Talk:Eastern Front (World War II)/Proposed

And i want it to be crystal clear every little change i have made have allways been with sources in my hand if anyone has any problems what so ever with my sources then please say so and why they are wrong and i will go and look at your sources

But that has not happened what would happen would be ksenone would write and remove what ever he wanted I would go and look up sources read them and then add the nummbers or facts or what ever to wiki and he would just remove them

Deng 19-01-06 19.55 CET

Please protect this page as it is being abused by students. What is currently on there is our official statement that we would like public. If people want more information our website is listed. If this is not possible please could you protect that statement and allow adding more information below it. Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.237.132.33 (talk • contribs) 10:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is fine how it is, aside from needing wikification. This school administrator, contributing as 80.237.132.33, would like the page to reflect a POV version of the page that is approved by the school for public consumption. See this diff. That is not what we do here. — Scm83x talk 10:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it is not fine as it is inaccurate and false. We do not want to have to chase around after inaccurate information and getting into lengthy disscussion over what is and isn\\\\\\\'t approved by the school. If it is unable to be protected please could it just be removed in it\\\\\\\'s entirity as this is taking more time than it is worth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.237.132.33 (talk • contribs)

Please indicate what parts of the article are inaccurate or false. I\\\'m sorry, but this article will not be protected or removed. — Scm83x talk 10:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to follow the line, updated the article to be accurate, left all stubs, titles and any other bits and bobs alone and it had been reverted. What point is there to this article if it is not allowed to be updated to be kept accurate! What am I meant to do? If I can not get it protected or deleted it is going to be changed every evening by students filling it up with rubbish. But you will not allow for it be updated and made factual? I\\\'m sorry if I am sounding slightly annoyed but this is taking up far too much time for something we don\\\'t even want up as an establishment!

I am actually going to full protect it, because I see an edit war between users and anons. I see \"agreed upon as a compromise\" in the edit summaries but there is literally 0 discussion on the article. Protecting to spur it. --\'\'Woohookitty\'\'(cat scratches) 23:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The compromise was finally worked out with Ezeu\'s help, many thanks. The reason we are an anon user is that the are IP address has been filtered because it covers about 5-10 schools and that must generate a high level of abuse. This we are happy with though but does mean editing is made tricky. Thank you Woohookitty for interceding. 80.237.132.33

Current requests for unprotection

Please place new requests at the TOP and use {{article|ARTICLE NAME}} when listing a page here, where ARTICLE NAME is the article or page you wish to be unprotected. {{Editprotected}} can be used to request edits to protected pages as an alternative to requests for page unprotection.

I've provided sources for my paragraph "Wartime Activities" on the discussion page. Please unprotect.

I can see no reason why this is protected. No mention on the talk page either. I'm in the process of changing the cleanup resource templates to meet the current standard of syncing with the main {{Cleanup}} template. Stifle 17:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please unprotect the Anarchism article (but not the Anarchism template.) There seems to be more or less consensus that anarcho-capitalism should be included in the article, although the saliency is still disputed. At any rate, it has been protected for too long.

The template is a different story - it is almost certain that the revert war wrt the anarcho-capitalism link would continue unabated. The current protected version is satisfactory and neutral. Hogeye 17:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please unprotect this page because the person who protected it so did it with a defective version which makes some of the graphs look bad and makes someparts give one nummber whilst another part gives another nummber

Deng 19-01-06 13.40 CET

Could another admin look at this? I don't think what I did was wrong. As everyone who reads this knows, I don't usually revert to previous versions. My fear is that if I protected Deng's version, he would just go silent and nothing would be solved. But if someone thinks I was in the wrong and they think it should be unprotected, by all means do so. I won't get mad or anything. :) And btw, the table that Deng keeps changing was in our standard format. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly endorse the protection of this page. As long as the version that is protected is not Deng's it will probably be OK. User Deng has inserted essentially identical edits dozens of times over the last few months, and the consensus of other editors has been consistently against him. This began as a simple set of content disagreements but, IMO, has reached the stage of vandalism on Deng's part. I say this because the edits are repetitive (they are not word-for-word identical, but tend to make the same points over and over); reverted rapidly by multiple editors (I cannot speak for them, but I note the pattern. Sometimes they are reverted within minutes, and occasionally there are multiple reverts of the same content in one day); very poorly written; shrill, with an obvious point of view; and usually inaccurate. User Deng has engaged in the discussion on the talk page, but his understanding of the issues is so poor he cannot be convinced by the rational arguments of other editors. The result has been a constant revert cycle over the last few months, resulting in a poor article. DMorpheus 14:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to back you up Woohookitty. The unprotection argument is hollow, nothing looks bad at casual glance. Protection will hopefully force all editors to agree on what numbers are to be used (if there are inconsistencies). --Syrthiss 14:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having had a look at the changes in question, I agree that protection is warranted. The way forward is for the editors to find reliable references to back up the figures which will be included in the article. The main thrust of the disputed text is probably accurate, but it definitely needs references to back up the claimed figures. --GraemeL (talk) 15:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good. So I'm not nuts. :) I've been patrolling this page for 3 months and it's the first time I've reverted and then protected. Made me a little nervous, but I appreciate the support. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 15:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First I am the only one in this argument who have stated sources and those are

"Russia's War" by Prof. Richard Overy tables are found on pages 155, 178 and 238

"Campagins of World War 2 Day by Day" written by Chris Bishop And Chris Mcnab lists of causlties and production nummbers can be found of pages 244-252

"Barberossa" by Alan Clark

second of all the whole problem with this matter is that ksenon would just remove stuff because he didnt like the facts and It should also be noted that I made all the graphs or almost all of them the first one which i later moddified was made by someone else but i provided the nummbers and the sources

If someone would please just go here User talk:Ksenon you will see that this person has done the same thing on many pages, removed facts just like that and not stated any sources

And the test page was made by ME i hope no one thinks that Woohookitty did it because i did it, but i named mine test eastern front but he deleted that one and moved it here Talk:Eastern Front (World War II)/Proposed

And i want it to be crystal clear every little change i have made have allways been with sources in my hand if anyone has any problems what so ever with my sources then please say so and why they are wrong and i will go and look at your sources

But that has not happened what would happen would be ksenone would write and remove what ever he wanted I would go and look up sources read them and then add the nummbers or facts or what ever to wiki and he would just remove them

Deng 19-01-06 19.55 CET

Actually it's partially an edit war and partially vandalism. will keep FP for now. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:SlimVirgin

Seems this userpage was vandalized more than two months ago. Owner protected it, has not unprotected. Uncommunicative about reason for protection. Silently restores protection when it is removed. No evidence of ongoing vandalism or any other reason to protect. No response to my queries. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for protection is quite obvious; rather horrifying, on-going vandalism. The edit history makes that clear, e.g:[1]. Jayjg (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should stay protected. Editors are in dispute over material on it. One fears that if it is unprotected, the warring over images on the page will begin again. I urge uninvolved admins to keep it protected and not encourage the bullying of a good editor. Grace Note 06:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are no images in dispute on the page. Jayjg (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with ya. Slim's page tends to be a target for vandals, much like my own page. No reason to unprotect since usually, people don't edit other people's edit pages anyway. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the vandalism at the time, and it was the most vile, disgusting vandalism that I had ever seen, as well as being persistent. I note from the block log that SlimVirgin did, herself, unprotect three times, in the hope that the vandalism would stop, but was on each occasion forced to reprotect. Given the sexually harassing nature of the vandalism, I would strongly endorse leaving SlimVirgin to decide at what stage she feels comfortable unprotecting. Her previous voluntary unprotections show that she can be trusted not to abuse the system. AnnH (talk) 11:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems good reason to leave protected in this case. Anyway, what is the problem with userpages being protected? Admins can still edit them if their is need to remove something, other than that, who has need to edit them? (A user talk pages would be a different matter.) --Doc ask? 12:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, this doesn't seem right. The vandalism is months in the past, and if there's a dispute over the legal status of images on her userpage there is an embryonic policy to which she seems to have agreed, to the effect that she herself would remove any disputed image. So I see not reason to keep protected. Speaking for myself I don't even know which image is supposed to be disputed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no dispute about the legal status of images on her userpage that I am aware of; can you list the images about which you think there is a dispute? Jayjg (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't decided what I think of userpage protection by, or on the request of, the user themselves. It's not article space, so they get the 'latitude' traditional in userspace, and it's not like there's any need for someone to edit it, except in emergency in which case an admin can step in. But then, protection is generally considered harmful, and that principle doesn't seem to philosophically exclude userspace. -Splashtalk 17:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll echo Splash here. While I disagree with the practice and personally doubt I would ever semi-permanently protect my own page since it's against my nature (especially since I encourage people to sign it), I find it in poor taste to ask other admins to force it unprotected. Without an immediate reason, there's no reason to unprotect involuntarily; this is another admin we are talking about: trust in her reasonableness, and talk it over. Dmcdevit·t 04:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason why people should not be able to protect their own user pages at their request. You usually aren't supposed to be messing around with other people's user pages without their permission anyway. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to take the approach that it's a wiki, and we shouldn't be protecting pages unless there is a need to do so. This applies to user pages in my opinion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what the big deal is. If she wants to protect her userpage, I don't really care; it doesn't hurt anything and I'm sure she has a good reason for doing it. Don't see any reason to second guess it. If somebody wants to strip it of fair use images, an admin can do that anyway whether it's protected or not. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 21:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find any fair use images on it; can someone please list which ones are there? Jayjg (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It's her user space. There's no reason to unprotect it against SV's wishes. FeloniousMonk 21:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree. The user herself may protect her own page. That is some of the most horrific user page vandalism I have ever seen. -Husnock 21:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:afd top

also Template:afd bottom

I can't find any reason those two templates should be protected. →AzaToth 01:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it protect to avoid vandalism. very few edits are made to that, or need to be.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 01:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but this is a wiki, first, is this a high-risk template? Have it been a lot of vandalism? etc... →AzaToth 01:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since both of them are on every single closed AfD we do, yes. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 01:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you do the math, we close about 100-120 afds a day. That's about 4,000 a month. About 50,000 a year. So yes. Very high risk. And templates can always be altered if there is a consensus to change them. The talk pages on the templates are open. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 01:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remeber when the Flux template was a huge picture of a penis, so every current events page had it. One word: yikes :(.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 02:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. I bet if you did a "What links here" on the 2 templates, each would end up with well over 20,000+ articles linked to it. Just since January 1st, there have probably been close to 2,000 afds closed. These are actually 2 of our most useds templates. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 02:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is almost always subst:ed, and is thus in actual use in far fewer places than one might think. -Splashtalk 02:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, but it's still high use if you look at "What links here" for it. I just don't see a reason to unprotect. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 03:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a reason to unprotect to me. Phil Sandifer 06:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the reason being? --Doc ask? 12:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. It's in high use. Should people use subst? Yes. But some don't, so. If changes are warranted, you can suggest them on the templates talk page. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep protected, high-risk template. Radiant_>|< 13:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should absolutely be kept protected. Any changes should be discussed on the talk page of the templates and if there's consensus one of the 750+ admins can make the actual edit. It's true that the template is almost always subst'd, which means that any vandalism (or bad edits made in good faith) would permanently become part of a closed AfD. Carbonite | Talk 14:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current requests for protected edits

See Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=35865478"