Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

[[:|WP:RFPP or WP:RFP]]

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

Place new requests at the top.

Tucson, Arizona

Edit war in progress. Please protect to enforce a cool down period. ike9898 16:48, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

Protected. Please work your differences out on the talk page. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 19:52, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Benedictine

Please protect Benedictine. If you look through the history, a series of anon vandals have repeatedly added references to one Eugene Leipounski to the page, sometimes with claims that he is homosexual. According to Mpntod, Mr. Leipounski is a twentieth century mathematician and not a sixth century monk (see the history). I've edited that page and so shouldn't do this myself. Please remove any reference to Mr. Leipounski and protect the page. -- Smerdis of Tlön 17:25, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Red Ensign

Please protect Red Ensign AndyL 07:13, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Temporarily protected. Please engage in discussion on the article's talk page. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 14:55, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

America's Army

Please unprotect America's_Army. If you look at the latest versions of the article, you can very well see that no vandalism happened. Above all, no one is opposing a change of the page anymore. -- User:217.185.104.181

Removed reference to vandalism in the protection message since there wasn't any. Can you support your statement that nobody opposes the disputed changes? silsor 00:17, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Agree. Unprotect. anthony 警告 18:42, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On the talk page in the section "still to change" there are the changes I'd like to have. The content of the section was created on "14:24, 6 Dec 2004" (but the headline "still to change" wasn't added till "21:26, 7 Dec 2004"). In that section I gave reasons why the version of the "America's Army"article created on "22:00, 5 Dec 2004" should be chosen instead of the protected article which is now there. Although there was and still is some dispute about the content of the protected main article, no one has opposed any of the suggested changes from the "still to change"- section. But also in that section there's irrelevant information that has nothing to do with the section. I've {{{ }}}-hooked the irrelevant part recently because that part isn't meant to be included in the article anyway. Don't think K1Bond opposed the "still to change"-section, he only commented on the irrelevant part in it. The section "when all is said and done" of the talk page is now discussing other changes that BOTH the current version and my suggested version possess. These changes are disputed but the suggested ones in the "still to change"-section (excluding the irrelevant part) are not. (You'd best look at the differences between the two main article's versions ("00:13, 11 Dec 2004" and "22:00, 5 Dec 2004") and look at the "still to change" section to see the reasons why I think the latter is better)

The only thing I was able to get out of the "still to change" section on the talk page is that you drove off User:Andrevan with your massive, rambling, unsigned comments, and that now the only reason nobody opposes your changes is that there is nobody left. silsor 23:25, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

By the comments on the talk page, this is still far too heated to unprotect. Your statements that nobody opposes your changes are misleading. silsor 23:27, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

No, there are still two persons there and they're busy replying and suggesting other things (Bond and grover). I didn't drive anyone away, not even Andrevean, who left for other reasons (in my opinion you can have a different one). A lot of what I wrote has been disputed but not "still to change". I wanted them to comment on that passage (I said "Now concentrate on that below please") and everything has been commented on except for that. Then I created "when all is said and done" and told them to comment on the proposal, but Bond just said he disagreed, accused me of having driven everyone away, complained about the other screenshot and then yakked about "copyright infringement" and "POV" which he accused ANOTHER VERSION, NOT THE ONE PROPOSED (namely, 00:20, 3 Dec 2004) of being and Grover added what he thinks should be changed about BOTH versions. No one has ever disputed any of what is in the "still to change" section (except for the irrelevant part) and no one could ever give a reason why "00:13, 11 Dec 2004" was chosed and protected instead of "22:00, 5 Dec 2004". Maybe it's too heated to be unprotected but that doesn't mean you shouldn't change the version.

Henri_Becquerel

Being vandalized by same vandal as George Washington. -- AllyUnion (talk) 15:10, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Vandal has been blocked. Protection shouldn't be neccesary anymore. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 19:28, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

George Washington

Third revert. Please protect the page. -- AllyUnion (talk) 15:06, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Vandal has been blocked. Protection shouldn't be neccesary anymore. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 19:28, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Hamid Karzai

This has been edited loads today, with more than a few reverts. I've reverted the last bit of vandalism, but I don't think it'll be long before it's vandalised again. I think it needs protecting until it's no longer mentioned on the Main Page.

Gypsum Fantastic 17:55, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've put the page on my watchlist and will keep an eye out for it. If vandalism starts again, I'll protect it. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 18:38, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)