Wikipedia:Requests for page protection
This page is for requesting that a page or image 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, users, or policies.
Current requests
- Newest requests on top
North American Man-Boy Love Association repeated insertion of dubious paragrahs. Get-back-world-respect 01:24, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Not sure there's enough of any edit war to merit protection at current. I'll try to keep an eye on it, and if it gets to be a bigger problem, I'll protect. As a side note - IMO, not all of Corax's insertions are dubious, IMO. Perhaps you should try to work out a solution. BLANKFAZE | (что?!) 03:23, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
MulletMullet (haircut) - User:Mogrady and his sock puppets keep removing valid information from it. Pyrop 23:02, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
India - Nagaland & India - Numbered - despite substantial modifications to the images that make them as NPOV as possible, and after consensus was reached among other users, User:Gzornenplatz continues to revert the images or the related articles without discussion, despite the consideration of his criticisms (which he has never elaborated on, much less debated, on the respective Talk pages.) This user has a history of such actions - see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gzornenplatz. -- Simonides 22:47, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Four lies in one paragraph, impressive. Gzornenplatz 22:52, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
- Prove it mate. -- Simonides 23:02, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- 1) Your map is not as NPOV as possible, as I explained on Talk:India. 2) Consensus was not reached, others agreed with me. 3) I don't revert "without discussion". I made my point and you haven't responded to it. 4) I have no "history of such actions" whatsoever. I have always explained my edits and no one has shown otherwise; the RfC is nothing but empty claims. Gzornenplatz 23:11, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
- 1)You only "explained" at 22:49 today (ie just before you wrote the above), and I explained that your explanation was bogus. 2) No one "agreed" with you, you weren't there - the other users and I agreed on a specific wording you continue to revert. 3) You never posted anything on the Talk page until the last 20 mins; the discussion began at 19:56 yesterday and your reverts were made even before that. 4) The RfC has a long chain of articles on which your idiotic behaviour has been documented. When you call the claims empty or me a liar it's time to learn about "irony". -- Simonides 23:28, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- See Talk:India regarding my decision not to waste more time with Simonides, who has so far called me "immature", "idiotic", "reactionary", "never contributing to articles", and a host of other personal attacks. If anyone else has questions on the issue here, feel free to ask. Suffice it to say that Simonides is evidently incapable of reading edit summaries. Gzornenplatz 23:33, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
- It's self-evident that you cannot defend your farcical statements. Also, I do believe everyone should look at the host of edit summaries linked at the RfC. -- Simonides 23:37, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- 1)You only "explained" at 22:49 today (ie just before you wrote the above), and I explained that your explanation was bogus. 2) No one "agreed" with you, you weren't there - the other users and I agreed on a specific wording you continue to revert. 3) You never posted anything on the Talk page until the last 20 mins; the discussion began at 19:56 yesterday and your reverts were made even before that. 4) The RfC has a long chain of articles on which your idiotic behaviour has been documented. When you call the claims empty or me a liar it's time to learn about "irony". -- Simonides 23:28, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)