Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

"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.

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 protection Request unprotection of a page, or reducing the protection level Request unprotection Request a specific edit to a protected page Please request an edit directly on the protected page's talk page before posting here Request edit

this header: view • edit

Current requests for protection

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.

Magic (paranormal) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Long term semi protect ip vandals have attacked the article for days now. If I'm asking for too much then a temporary is fine. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Terrelle Pryor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

temporary semi-protection Vandalism Receives IP vandalism off and on almost every day. Burner0718 ^{(Jibba Jabba!)} 05:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 7 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Nishkid64 (talk) 05:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jordan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Constant vandalism to article..Chetblong^{T C} 04:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I came here for the same reason, the page has been semi-protected 90% of the time since I've been on here; until someone gets the bright idea to unprotect it and everyone remembers the reason why it was protected in the first place. Aaron Bowen (talk) 04:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ditto, always vandalized by IP's. Burner0718 ^{(Jibba Jabba!)} 05:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Jmlk17 05:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Polar bear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Very heavy vandalism right after unprotection.. Marlith (Talk)  04:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for 15 days. bibliomaniac15 04:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Nudity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-Protect Constant vandalism and IP edit-warring.--The Dominator (talk) 03:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for 5 days. bibliomaniac15 04:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Son Goku (Dragon Ball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi protect high amounts of vandalism. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for 1000 hours. bibliomaniac15 04:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Nicholas Winset (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

full protection Repeated vandalism over many months Repeated vandalism and libel by a former co-worker and stalker of the professor. All vandalism is coming from the same geographic area, and has recently switched to public terminals. Subject of biography has complained to wiki foundation about vandalism and libel. 68.14.136.137 21:15, 6 February 2008 (EST).

Heidi Montag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Anonymous IP vandalism and removal of sourced content by IPs..Pinkadelica (talk) 02:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Dominican Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

temporary semi-protection Quite a bit of vandalism from various IPs within the past couple days. Kakofonous (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Prem Rawat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi protection. user:24.98.132.123 (talk) is making substantial undiscussed edits using unreliable source and inserting stupid comments, such as Dictionary of nutty Beliefs & Religions" into article.Momento (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for one week. - Philippe | Talk 20:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• "Dictionary of nutty Beliefs & Religions" was not entered by me as you can see from the history. What I have entered however is the following (properly cited):

In 2008, an article by The Register stated that the organization is "widely recognized as a cult"[78] and that the editing of the Prem Rawat article by some editors of Wikipedia is evidence of "... the most extreme conflict of interest in the history of Wikipedia."

As published here: The Register

Attempts to discuss edits with Momento have gone without response. 24.98.132.123 (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I repeatedly deleted 24.98.132.123 inclusion of this article [[1]] in accordance with BLP policy. It has since been deleted on 21:20, 6 February 2008 by an independent editor David D. because he believes this article has nothing to do with the subject. 24.98.132.123 did not discuss his edits on the talk page before acting. Thanks.Momento (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Momento...you and Jossi and just about finished on the Wikipedia scene. I just read the article in the register [ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/06/the_cult_of_wikipedia/] and wanted to vomit. It's all true. Hope you guys get the biggest banning afforded you by other administrators.--Pax Arcane 00:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

AuburnPilot is now giving me veiled threats for referencing this article. --Pax Arcane 02:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Full permanent protection, for the same reason as Wikipedia:Wikimedia. Please also consider the following entries:

• Wikipedia:WMF
• Wikipedia:Wikimedia Foundation

and also the following entries to avoid continuous recreation or double-redirect problem

• metawiki
• metaWiki
• meta-wiki
• meta-Wiki
• meta wiki
• meta Wiki

16@r (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: They don't seem to have any vandalism to them... this shows no edits to Wikimedia since 2006. I will leave it for an admin to decide :) --The Helpful One 19:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

These redirects are crucial entries and don't really need to be open... 16@r (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Current requests for unprotection

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.

User talk:150.204.50.18 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

unprotection , Block expired 2 years ago..Solumeiras (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Unprotected - auburnpilot talk 00:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Pete Price (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

unprotection , Protected for too long - allow anons to edit it..Solumeiras (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• What are you saying? Enigmaman (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Declined Article was protected due to biographical concerns. Unprotection would more likely than not cause the flood of BLP edits to return. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The Fast and the Furious 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unprotect. I'm trying to create a new article here based on reliable sources. The movie has an IMDB page now, you know, and there is a lot of info about it on the net. --MrStalker ^(talk) 18:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate an unprotection ASAP. --MrStalker ^(talk) 19:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're in doubt of my statement, here are the sources:

1. Elena Torres (2008-01-28). "'The Fast And The Furious' Franchise Drifts Toward Another Sequel". MTV Movies Team. Retrieved 2008-02-06.
2. Larry Carrol (2008-01-29). "Ortiz Cast In 'Public Enemies,' Revs Up For 'Fast And The Furious 4'". MTV Movies Team. Retrieved 2008-02-06.

--MrStalker ^(talk) 19:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: I'll wait for a second opinion before marking this declined, but I am not tempted to remove protection because one blog happened to mention the movie on two consecutive days in January. - auburnpilot talk 00:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Current requests for significant edits to a protected page

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.

Memphis, Tennessee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

long rant hidden. Click show to see it.

Compulsive deletion, and tag-teaming, deliberate destruction of the entry regarding David Saks as the composer of the only "Official Songs of Memphis" has become personal with a problematic user, Jersyko, who compulsively, and with somewhat seditious and incitive or rabble-rousing fashion, as noted by editing comments, removes entries pertaining to Mr. Saks' work. User Jersyko, within the last two years, had one user, Reneec, inexecusably banned because of her support of David Saks and, in paranoid fashion, removed personal information about himself as a law student at the University of Memphis while falsely alleging that the user had threatened him with bodily harm. "One Last Bridge," written by native Memphian, composer and pianist David Saks, was adopted and proclaimed in unanimous resolution (11-0) by the Memphis City Council as Memphis' Official Song of 1990. His composition, "In Memphis" , was adopted as an Official Song of Memphis, the following year in City Council session, in 1991. These are the only two musical compositions ever adopted as Official Songs of Memphis. The record of the Memphis City Council has been reviewed, confirmed many times, is notable and well documented. Refer to the archives for additional information. The recognition of David Saks was an honor presented to him that was of a distinctly greater degree than is commonly the nature of the Memphis City Council. It was a tangible symbol signifying the approval of this gentlemans' contributions to the community. The compulsive deletion, sabotage and tag-teaming of this entry by a few has become personal and vicious. Any attempt to suppress the input of any entry without an account is ludicrous, derisory and prejudicial. Mr. Saks deserves to be recognized honorably within the article.

Jersyko is arrogant and self-opinionated. Thank you for a reasonable attitude toward the discussion of Mr. Saks, Archtransit. User Jersyko is impervious to reason and has waged a personal war against any entry recognizing either Mr. Saks' honor or the fact that the two songs composed by Mr. Saks' are, indeeed, the only two songs ever adopted by the city government as the official songs of Memphis. We are not the user User:Reneec this disgruntled admin is referring. My wife and I know of Mr.Saks. He is a remarkable and kind person who would take great offense at any attempt to dishonor or discredit him in such fashion that jersyko has instigated. The Memphis, Tennessee archive demonstrates that Mr. Saks has forwarded requested documentation from the Memphis City Council demonstrating that the awards were legitimate. It was not good enough for jersyko. I would ask that jersyko and his editing privileges be given careful scrutiny by a body of peers. Not cronies that remorselessly and pitilessly tag team and destroy worthy entries like vandals. We discovered that the legal threat that this disatisfied user refers is an entry that User:Reneec made many months ago when she discovered that jersyko was a law student at the University of Memphis. The user, Reneec, suggested that a call to the Deans Office at the University of Memphis, to determine whether or not Jersyko was indeed who he said he was, could be inferred to be as ridiculous as a suggestion that Jersyko and another, User:Scribner, made that Mr. Saks should be called to inquire whether or not Mr. Saks was given the award by the government or if he asked the government for the award, an insidious attempt to insult Mr. Saks. Jersyko believed that User:Reneec, who had discovered his real identity, was going to call the law school dean, and vigorously campaigned to have user Reneec banned from Wikipedia. User:Reneec never published User:Jersyko real identity out of respect for him, even after she was banned. Jersyko's behavior, along with others, was unjustifiable and an act of oppression towards a new user. Please read the archives. Jersyko was never threatened. Thank you again, Archtransit. Vindication for Mr. Saks may be possible with a kindly and thoughtful attempt towards resolution. 208.100.225.242 (talk) 01:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Declined

Template:User (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm working on cleaning up Wikipedia:Bots/Status. Some users who make bots are only active on other wikis (they might not even have accounts on English wiki). In order to make the table clean, with templates, I needed to add an interwiki parameter to Template:User. My changes to the code would not in any way affect any existing use of Template:User on any page, because it only generates something different if the template uses a third parameter (which no existing instances of Template:User would).

An example of the code to be added is at Template:Usernewtest. Every line of code there is carefully commented, so that it's easy to follow even for non-programmers. Here's how it works. Say you have a user named Flacus with an account on English wiki and an account on German wiki.

• The standard way of doing it is:
  

{{User|Flacus}}
This generates a link to his English wiki account, talkpage, and contribs list:
Template:Usernewtest

• A silly and redundant way of doing this would be:
  

{{User|Flacus|en}}
This generates:
Template:Usernewtest

• However, let's say Flacus has no account on English wiki, or his account on German wiki is more active. Someone could write:
  

{{User|Flacus|de}}
This generates the interwiki user template:
Template:Usernewtest

This works for all of the interwiki codes.

To copy the code:

1. Copy the stuff at Template:Usernewtest from my last revision.
2. Add to the end of it:

<noinclude> {{pp-template|small=yes}} {{template doc}} </noinclude>

Make sure you don't add the "pre" tags you only see if you edit this page. Also, the documentation (which is also locked) needs to be revised as well to account for this revision. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Declined at this time. This is a significant change to a widely used template. Because it is not substed, behaviour could be altered in past edits in a manner not envisaged at the time. You are going to have to demonstrate some kind of widespread approval for the change you wish to make. CIreland (talk) 11:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Officeholder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

For some days now an edit request has been put on the Officeholder infobox. Other pages on Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests have come and gone, but Infobox Officeholder seems to have been ignored. There was only one objection on the template talk page and that was because the user misunderstood the proposed edit. The new code stops the word 'incumbent' from being put in the succession field, corrects a code error, adds a missing premier field, adds a new partner field, and puts a hyperlink on the alma mater field. I've written the new code at User:Philip Stevens/Template:Infobox Officeholder. --Philip Stevens (talk) 12:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Page has now been updated. --Philip Stevens (talk) 09:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Already done. according to PS above. CIreland (talk) 12:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

NCAA Division I-A national football championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In the first paragraph of the "Rankings Overview" section there are several errors. It states "The NCAA guide[1] lists 340 national championship selections in 137 seasons, an average of between two and three selections every year ever. On that list, Notre Dame is credited with 21 championships, Oklahoma and USC with 17, Alabama and Michigan with 16, Ohio State with 13, Nebraska and Pittsburgh with 11--an amount exceeding claims by almost any university."

Referencing the actual ncaa site for Past Division 1 Football National Champions (http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/ia_football_past_champs.html) one can verify for themselves that Notre Dame is credited with 21, Alabama with 17, USC with 17, Oklahoma with 16, Michigan with 15, Ohio State with 14, Nebraska with 12 and Pittsburgh with 11.

In addition, the "Rankings Overview" section cites the College Football Data Warehouse (CFDW)(http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/national_championships/index.php) as a reference for determining "the most acceptable selectors" and determining the national champions. However, it goes on to list the Dickinson System, International News Service, Football Writers Association of America and the Harris Interactive Poll as acceptable selectors. The CFDW does not recognize these selectors in determining their national champions. In addition, this section also lists the National Championship Foundation as acceptable selectors from 1924-1953, the College Football Researchers Association as acceptable selectors from 1924-1953 and the Helms Athletic Foundation as acceptable selectors from 1883-1982. The CFDW on the other hand only lists the National Championship Foundation as acceptable selectors from 1869-1892, the College Football Researchers Association as acceptable selectors from 1919-1935 and the Helms Athletic Foundation as acceptable selectors from 1883-1935. Thus the CFDW does not recognize Notre Dame as champions in 1938, Alabama as champions in 1945, USC as champions in 1939 and Oklahoma as champions in 1953 and 1978.

So according to the CFDW, in the "Most national championship" section, Notre Dame should have 12 recognized titles, Alabama should have 11 recognized titles (the CFDW includes 1934), USC should have 10 recognized titles and Oklahoma should have 7 recognized titles. This would further change the "Most Poll Era National Championships" sections by giving Notre Dame - 9, Oklahoma - 7, USC - 7, and Alabama - 7. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cson37 (talk • contribs)

Unprotected - go forth and make the edits your own way. :-) east.718 at 08:12, February 1, 2008

British National Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Entry for the 'British National Party' section 1.6 entitled '2007 split' is outdated. The group referred to as 'RealBNP' has become an internal democratic pressure group called 'Voice of Change'. This drive for democratic change to the party's constitution has growing support among the BNPs grassroots membership, and I would like to add this update plus a link to the Voice of Change pressure group into the British National Party's entry section 1.6.

Web Refs: http://www.voiceofchange.org.uk/index.php http://enoughisenoughnick.blogspot.com/

{[User:ChrisLhill]} chris@chrishill.freeserve.co.uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.27.44 (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Declined This type of edit would require independent reliable sources. You might want to mention it on the article's talk page to gather consensus. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Per request here. Many thanks! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Already done. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Free Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Final reversion by Lawrence Cohen on 22 January was minutes before page was protected during edit war. Eschoir returned from 24 hour block for edit warring that morning and straightaway started edit war again. This time he recruited Lawrence Cohen from WP:RFAR. As shown on talk page final revert by Lawrence Cohen is not supported by consensus or by Wikipedia policy. Please restore previous version by Samurai Commuter. Shibumi2 (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Declined - see this for more information why. east.718 at 22:20, January 25, 2008

Al-Qaeda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In the article on al-Qaeda: I'd like to request that a separate level-2 heading be created to discuss the essential issue of al-Qaeda's numbers. Nowhere in the article, as currently protected, is there a systematic discussion of the number of operatives in the organization. From the text of the article as it currently stands, al-Qaeda could include tens of millions of operatives, or less than fifty. This needless, dangerous ambiguity to the article ought to be addressed and corrected forthwith. --TallulahBelle (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Declined It needs to be addressed by editors on the talk page then. After consensus has been achieved, then you request an edit. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 20:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Rodimus The F22 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

I'd like to request that someone remove the M1 Abrams message at the top, WP:DENY. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 04:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Declined It doesn't have anything to do with DENY from what I can see. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 20:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision (edit | project page | history | links | watch | logs)

A rather unorthodox request. An arbitrator has protected this page, but left a conditional in her edit summary. For details, see here. The current "pp-dispute" tag at the top of the talk page tells people to come here to request unprotection. What I would like is for an uninvolved administrator to change that link (you may need to substitute the template) to point to User talk:FloNight#Agreement regarding Wikipedia talk:Requests for_arbitration/IRC/Proposed_decision instead. This will allow any uninvolved editors passing by, and unaware of the situation, to go to the right place to ask for page unprotection. Carcharoth (talk) 06:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Done ~ Riana ⁂ 08:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Medicine Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not sure if this is the right place for this request, but nowhere else seems as appropriate. I'd like to request that Medicine Show be (re?)created as a redirect to Medicine show, but not (necessarily) unprotected. Note also the existence of Medicine Show (album). I found the SALT tag when looking for the Big Audio Dynamite single, incidentally. Tevildo (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Done Mr.Z-man 08:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Fulfilled/denied requests

Zensa Raggi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

temporary semi-protection Vandalism.Euku 23:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Declined There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Unionville High School (Pennsylvania) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection. Edit war in progress with anonymous users adding non-notable content, while others attempt to clean up the article. BroadSt Bully (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Butt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Heavy vandalism in one day. Spread hours apart. Marlith (Talk)  22:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Declined There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

February 2008 tornado outbreak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection for 48 hours due to increased vandalism as it is getting high media attention and its main page presence. CrazyC83 (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Declined - we don't generally protect items that are on the main page. - Philippe | Talk 20:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Iranian peoples (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi protection. User:Tajik who is banned by the WP:ArbCom was distorting the article by using anon.ips. Please see the check-user results for him and his meatpuppet User:Beh-nam ( Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tajik & Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Beh-nam). Please also note the diffs: comment1, comment 2. E104421 (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. - Philippe | Talk 20:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Timurid dynasty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi protection. User:Tajik who is banned by the WP:ArbCom was distorting the article by using anon.ips. Please see the check-user results for him and his meatpuppet User:Beh-nam ( Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tajik & Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Beh-nam). Please also note the diffs: comment1, comment 2. E104421 (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. - Philippe | Talk 20:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Barlas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi protection. User:Tajik who is banned by the WP:ArbCom was distorting the article by using anon.ips. Please see the check-user results for him and his meatpuppet User:Beh-nam ( Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tajik & Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Beh-nam). Please also note the diffs: comment1, comment 2. E104421 (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for two weeks. - Philippe | Talk 20:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hazara people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

‎Semi protection. User:Tajik who is banned by the WP:ArbCom was distorting the article by using anon.ips. Please see the check-user results for him and his meatpuppet User:Beh-nam ( Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tajik & Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Beh-nam). Please also note the diffs: comment1, comment 2. E104421 (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. - Philippe | Talk 20:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Seljuq dynasty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

‎Semi protection. User:Tajik who is banned by the WP:ArbCom was distorting the article by using anon.ips. Please see the check-user results for him and his meatpuppet User:Beh-nam ( Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tajik & Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Beh-nam). Please also note the diffs: comment1, comment 2. E104421 (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. - Philippe | Talk 20:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Stickam‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Temporary Full protection. Both anon IP and non-anon user with few other edits keep adding non-encyc and spammy "list of celebs" to this article, despite repeated reverts (manual and bot) and warnings. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. - Philippe | Talk 20:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Antibiotic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi protection - a new round of IP vandalism has started. - Neparis (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for one week. - Philippe | Talk 20:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Lake-effect snow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

temporary semi-protection Vandalism, vcurrent vandilism by misc ip's._pete 17:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

looks like it has stopped. --_pete 17:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Declined Yep, looks like it is all over. If it resumes, feel free to make another request. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Meaning of life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

temporary semi-protection Vandalism, In recent months this page has been seeing an increasingly large amount of vandalism, especially in the past week or two. NickPenguin_(contribs) 16:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for two weeks. - Philippe | Talk 20:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Julian calendar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)Roman calendar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

semi-protect. An anonymous IP user has been repeatedly injecting long, rambling POV statements about intercalation into the Julian calendar article since 21 January. He refuses to use Talk:Julian calendar despite repeated requests, demands, and reversions of his edits. Semi-protecting the article would force him to use the Talk page or to go away.

The request for the Roman calendar article is pre-emptive. This is where one of his issues rightly belongs. Semi-protecting this article would prevent him from moving there, which is what he will probably do if only the Julian calendar article were semi-protected, rather than to Talk:Roman calendar.

--Chris Bennett (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected Julian calendar.

Declined Roman calendar - we don't preemptively protect pages. Let me know if the problem migrates and we can deal with it there. - Philippe | Talk 20:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Bill McCreary (referee) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

semi-protect. Target of vandalism from disgruntled Washington Capitals fans. (→Zachary) 15:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Already protected. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Kwame Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

semi-protect. Has been the target of extensive vandalism within the past week. semi or full protect. Whatever the admin thinks is best. Enigmaman (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a week. Also rolled back some vandalism. - Philippe | Talk 20:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railroad Company v. Illinois (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

temporary semi-protection Vandalism, High level of vandalism today from IP and new users.Mayalld (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for 3 days. - Philippe | Talk 20:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

World Soccer Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection; rampant undetected vandalism by anon ips over past days/month Ascidian (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected - Philippe | Talk 20:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Landmark Education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

temporary full protection Dispute, Article continues to have problems of edit-warring between multiple parties. Please check the logs of past protections, longer protect than last time might be in order. Also check the talk page. Full-protect will (hopefully) encourage users to resolve differences through dispute resolution rather than edit-warring..Cirt (talk) 12:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Fully protected for 2 weeks. - Philippe | Talk 20:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Edison Chen photo scandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection - IP editors keep adding unreferenced information to an article that's extremely sensitive in terms of WP:BLP concerns. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected - Philippe | Talk 20:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Bill McCreary (referee) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Temporary full protection due to substantial amount of IP vandalism today. The individual who is the subject of the article was involved in an unfortunate incident in an NHL game last night where he caused a Washington Capitals player to trip, leading to a goal for the other team, and Capitals fans have been vandalizing the article all day. The Capitals' fan message boards reflect a great deal of enthusiasm for the vandalism, as well. I suggest the page be fully protected until at least February 14, as the Capitals will have played four more games by then and the fans will have moved on. 1995hoo (talk) 19:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Note This is the second request for this article to be protected today. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 19:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for 2 weeks as a not widely watched BLP subject to recent vandalism due to external events. CIreland (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Lindsay Lohan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

unprotection , Protected for too long, should be safe to unprotect now.Solumeiras (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Declined, see log. WP:BLP article. Acalamari 19:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I still think it should be unprotected, though. --Solumeiras (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Mariah Carey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

unprotection , This page should not be protected for long periods of time, safe to unprotect and protecting admin is inactive..Solumeiras (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Declined Too tempting a target. I'll let another admin review this if need be. ~ Riana ⁂ 19:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I was actually going to say something similar to what you just said. I endorse keeping this page protected. Acalamari 19:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Italy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

unprotection , No need for long-term protection on this article now... safe to unprotect.Solumeiras (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Declined Too tempting a target. I'll let another admin review this if need be. ~ Riana ⁂ 19:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Japan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

unprotection , Safe to unprotect now.Solumeiras (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Declined Too tempting a target. I'll let another admin review this if need be. ~ Riana ⁂ 19:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Lytton Strachey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

temporary full protection Vandalism, Several IPs attacking page simultaneously.Toddst1 (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

User(s) blocked: Both users (talk · contribs). - should be enough ~ Riana ⁂ 18:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Vinalhaven, Maine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection requested. Lots of IP vandal attacks, probably from someone who lives on another island. UsaSatsui (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ~ Riana ⁂ 18:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

French Fort Cove (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

temporary full protection Vandalism.Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Declined ~ Riana ⁂ 18:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Michael Welner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

semi-protect. Ongoing IP vandalism to the Personal Background section. A stalker keeps changing Dr. Welner's marital status, removing his current wife's name. She then states she is engaged to Dr. Welner. On January 12, 2008 she even went as far as to state they have three children together, which is simply untrue. Dtjp538 (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. ~ Riana ⁂ 18:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Pwned (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Full protect, or at least semi-protect. This is a well-established redirect, to which no useful edits can be made. There's been a lot of vandalism, and it need not be tolerated. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Declined --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

France (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

unprotection , Should not be indefinitely protected, as with most geographical articles..Solumeiras (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Declined was only protected a few days ago, and only a day or so after the last protection was removed. Acalamari 19:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Battle Dawn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Ant59 (talk) 11:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Can this page be unprotected? I want to write an article here.